Background: Variation of inferior vena cava (IVC) is used to
predict fluid-responsiveness, but the IVC visualization with standard
sagittal approach (SC, subcostal) cannot be always achieved. In such
cases, coronal trans-hepatic (TH) window may offer an alternative, but
the interchangeability of IVC measurements in SC and TH is not fully
established. Further, artificial intelligence (AI) with automated border
detection may be of clinical value but it needs validation.
Methods: Prospective observational validation study in
mechanically ventilated patients with pressure-controlled mode. Primary
outcome was the IVC distensibility (IVC-DI) in SC and TH imaging, with
measurements taken both in M-Mode or with AI software. We calculated
mean bias, limits of agreement (LoA), and intra-class correlation (ICC)
coefficient. Results: Thirty-three patients were included.
Feasibility rate was 87.9% and 81.8% for SC and TH visualization,
respectively. Comparing imaging from the same anatomical site acquired
with different modalities (M-Mode vs AI), we found the following IVC-DI
differences: 1)SC: mean bias -3.1%, LoA [-20.1;13.9], ICC=0.65;
2)TH: mean bias -2.0%, LoA [-19.3;15.4], ICC=0.65. When comparing
the results obtained from the same modality but from different sites (SC
vs TH), IVC-DI differences were: 3)M-Mode: mean bias 1.1%, LoA
[-6.9;9.1], ICC=0.54; 4)AI: mean bias 2.0%, LoA [-25.7;29.7],
ICC=0.32. Conclusions: In patients mechanically ventilated, AI
software shows good accuracy (modest overestimation) and moderate
correlation as compared to M-mode assessment of IVC-DI, both for SC and
TH windows. However, precision seems suboptimal with wide LoA. The
comparison of M-Mode or AI between different sites yields similar
results but with weaker correlation.