INTRODUCTION:Enteral nutrition (EN) is very important to optimizing outcomes in critical illness. Debate exists regarding the best strategy for enteral tube feeding (TF), with concerns that bolus TF (BTF) may increase glycemic variability (GV) but result in fewer nutritional interruptions than continuous TF (CTF). This study examines if there is a difference in GV, insulin usage, TF volume, and caloric delivery among intensive care patients receiving BTF versus CTF. We hypothesize that there are no significant differences between CTF and BTF when comparing the above parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Prospective, randomized pilot study of critically ill adult patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement for EN was performed between March 1, 2012 and May 15, 2014. Patients were randomized to BTF or CTF. Glucose values, insulin use, TF volume, and calories administered were recorded. Data were organized into 12-h epochs for statistical analyses and GV determination. In addition, time to ≥80% nutritional delivery goal, demographics, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, and TF interruptions were examined. When performing BTF versus CTF assessments, continuous parameters were compared using Mann-Whitney U-test or repeated measures t-test, as appropriate. Categorical data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS:No significant demographic or physiologic differences between the CTF (n = 24) and BTF (n = 26) groups were seen. The immediate post-PEG 12-h epoch showed significantly lower GV and median TF volume for patients in the CTF group. All subsequent epochs (up to 18 days post-PEG) showed no differences in GV, insulin use, TF volume, or caloric intake. Insulin use for both groups increased when comparing the first 24 h post-PEG values to measurements from day 8. There were no differences in TF interruptions, time to ≥80% nutritional delivery goal, or hypoglycemic episodes. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrated no clinically relevant differences in GV, insulin use, TF volume or caloric intake between BTF and CTF groups. Despite some shortcomings, our data suggest that providers should not feel limited to BTF or CTF because of concerns for GV, time to goal nutrition, insulin use, or caloric intake, and should consider other factors such as resource utilization, ease of administration, and/or institutional/patient characteristics.

BACKGROUND In search of a standardized noninvasive assessment of intravascular volume status, we prospectively compared the sonographic inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVC-CI) and central venous pressures (CVPs). Our goals included the determination of CVP behavior across clinically relevant IVC-CI ranges, examination of unitary behavior of IVC-CI with changes in CVP, and estimation of the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on the IVC-CI/CVP relationship.METHODS Prospective, observational study was performed in surgical/medical intensive care unit patients between October 2009 and July 2013. Patients underwent repeated sonographic evaluations of IVC-CI. Demographics, illness severity, ventilatory support, CVP, and patient positioning were recorded. Correlations were made between CVP groupings (< 7, 7-12, 12-18, 19+) and IVC-CI ranges (< 25, 25-49, 50-74, 75+). Comparison of CVP (2-unit quanta) and IVC-CI (5-unit quanta) was performed, followed by assessment of per-unit IVC-CI/CVP behavior as well as examination of the effect of PEEP on the IVC-CI/CVP relationship.RESULTS We analyzed 320 IVC-CI/CVP measurement pairs from 79 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.8 [16.8] years; 64.6% male; mean [SD] Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, 11.7 [6.21]). Continuous data for IVC-CI/CVP correlated poorly (R-2 = 0.177, p < 0.01) and were inversely proportional, with CVP less than 7 noted in approximately 10% of the patients for IVC-CIs less than 25% and CVP less than 7 observed in approximately 85% of patients for IVC-CIs greater than or equal to 75%. Median IVC-CI per unit CVP was 3.25%. Most measurements (361 of 320) were collected in mechanically ventilated patients (mean [SD] PEEP, 7.76 [4.11] cm H2O). PEEP-related CVP increase was approximately 2 mm Hg to 2.5 mm Hg for IVC-CIs greater than 60% and approximately 3 mm Hg to 3.5 mm Hg for IVC-CIs less than 30%. PEEP also resulted in lower IVC-CIs at low CVPs, which reversed with increasing CVPs. When IVC-CI was examined across increasing PEEP ranges, we noted an inverse relationship between the two variables, but this failed to reach statistical significance.CONCLUSION IVC-CI and CVP correlate inversely, with each 1 mm Hg of CVP corresponding to 3.3% median IVC-CI. Low IVC-CI (< 25%) is consistent with euvolemia/hypervolemia, while IVC-CI greater than 75% suggests intravascular volume depletion. The presence of PEEP results in 2 mm Hg to 3.5 mm Hg of CVP increase across the IVC-CI spectrum and lower collapsibility at low CVPs. Although IVC-CI decreased with increasing degrees of PEEP, this failed to reach statistical significance. While this study represents a step forward in the area of intravascular volume estimation using IVC-CI, our findings must be applied with caution owing to some methodologic limitations.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Diagnostic study, level III. Prognostic study, level III.

BACKGROUND In search of a standardized noninvasive assessment of intravascular volume status, we prospectively compared the sonographic inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVC-CI) and central venous pressures (CVPs). Our goals included the determination of CVP behavior across clinically relevant IVC-CI ranges, examination of unitary behavior of IVC-CI with changes in CVP, and estimation of the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on the IVC-CI/CVP relationship. METHODS Prospective, observational study was performed in surgical/medical intensive care unit patients between October 2009 and July 2013. Patients underwent repeated sonographic evaluations of IVC-CI. Demographics, illness severity, ventilatory support, CVP, and patient positioning were recorded. Correlations were made between CVP groupings (<7, 7–12, 12–18, 19+) and IVC-CI ranges (<25, 25–49, 50–74, 75+). Comparison of CVP (2-unit quanta) and IVC-CI (5-unit quanta) was performed, followed by assessment of per-unit ΔIVC-CI/ΔCVP behavior as well as examination of the effect of PEEP on the IVC-CI/CVP relationship. RESULTS We analyzed 320 IVC-CI/CVP measurement pairs from 79 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.8 [16.8] years; 64.6% male; mean [SD] Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, 11.7 [6.21]). Continuous data for IVC-CI/CVP correlated poorly (R2 = 0.177, p < 0.01) and were inversely proportional, with CVP less than 7 noted in approximately 10% of the patients for IVC-CIs less than 25% and CVP less than 7 observed in approximately 85% of patients for IVC-CIs greater than or equal to 75%. Median ΔIVC-CI per unit CVP was 3.25%. Most measurements (361 of 320) were collected in mechanically ventilated patients (mean [SD] PEEP, 7.76 [4.11] cm H2O). PEEP-related CVP increase was approximately 2 mm Hg to 2.5 mm Hg for IVC-CIs greater than 60% and approximately 3 mm Hg to 3.5 mm Hg for IVC-CIs less than 30%. PEEP also resulted in lower IVC-CIs at low CVPs, which reversed with increasing CVPs. When IVC-CI was examined across increasing PEEP ranges, we noted an inverse relationship between the two variables, but this failed to reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION IVC-CI and CVP correlate inversely, with each 1 mm Hg of CVP corresponding to 3.3% median ΔIVC-CI. Low IVC-CI (<25%) is consistent with euvolemia/hypervolemia, while IVC-CI greater than 75% suggests intravascular volume depletion. The presence of PEEP results in 2 mm Hg to 3.5 mm Hg of CVP increase across the IVC-CI spectrum and lower collapsibility at low CVPs. Although IVC-CI decreased with increasing degrees of PEEP, this failed to reach statistical significance. While this study represents a step forward in the area of intravascular volume estimation using IVC-CI, our findings must be applied with caution owing to some methodologic limitations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Diagnostic study, level III. Prognostic study, level III.

Forbes, Rachel MD; Jones, Christian MD; Njoku, Chinedu PhD, RN; Tulman, David; Evans, David C. MD; Bergese, Sergio MD; Thongrong, Catteleya MD; Kong, Nicolas PhD; Stawicki, Stanislaw P. MD, FACS Author Information

BACKGROUND:Traditional methods for intravascular volume status assessment are invasive and are associated significant complications. While focused bedside sonography of the inferior vena cava (IVC) has been shown to be useful in estimating intravascular volume status, it may be technically difficult and limited by patient factors such as obesity, bowel gas, or postoperative surgical dressings. The goal of this investigation is to determine the feasibility of subclavian vein (SCV) collapsibility as an adjunct to IVC collapsibility in intravascular volume status assessment. METHODS:A prospective study was conducted on a convenience sample of surgical intensive care unit patients to evaluate interchangeability of IVC collapsibility index (IVC-CI) and SCV-CI. After demographic and acuity of illness information was collected, all patients underwent serial, paired assessments of IVC-CI and SCV-CI using portable ultrasound device (M-Turbo; Sonosite, Bothell, WA). Vein collapsibility was calculated using the formula [collapsibility (%) = (max diameter - min diameter)/max diameter × 100%]. Paired measurements from each method were compared using correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman measurement bias analysis. RESULTS:Thirty-four patients (mean age 56 y, 38% female) underwent a total of 94 paired SCV-CI and IVC-CI sonographic measurements. Mean acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score was 12. Paired SCV- and IVC-CI showed acceptable correlation (R(2) = 0.61, P < 0.01) with acceptable overall measurement bias [Bland-Altman mean collapsibility difference (IVC-CI minus SCV-CI) of -3.2%]. In addition, time needed to acquire and measure venous diameters was shorter for the SCV-CI (70 s) when compared to IVC-CI (99 s, P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:SCV collapsibility assessment appears to be a reasonable adjunct to IVC-CI in the surgical intensive care unit patient population. The correlation between the two techniques is acceptable and the overall measurement bias is low. In addition, SCV-CI measurements took less time to acquire than IVC-CI measurements, although the clinical relevance of the measured time difference is unclear.