Journals | Policy | Permission

Journal of Clinical Medicine Research

Review

Volume 12, Number 4, April 2020, pages 230-232

Utilization of Ultrasound to Assess Volume Status in Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) represents a significant financial burden to the US health care system, affecting approximately 5.7 million Americans [1]. By 2030, the prevalence of HF is expected to increase by 23% [2]. In 2012, the estimated annual cost for the management of HF patients was $30.7 billion, which may increase to $70 billion by 2030 [1]. Most of this cost is attributable to hospital admissions and readmissions [1]. It has been shown that patients hospitalized for HF have a 1-month readmission rate as high as 25% [3]. Acute HF can be classified into three forms: chronic HF exacerbation, which makes up about 75% of hospital admissions, new-onset HF, which makes up 20% of hospital admissions, and refractory HF with severely reduced ejection fraction, which represents approximately 5% of cases [4].

It is now known that hemodynamic congestion from increases in intracardiac pressure occurs days to weeks prior to the onset of typical HF symptoms, such as weight gain and shortness of breath. Further complicating the matter is the fact that a large proportion of this population has increased lymphatic drainage as a compensatory response to chronic congestive HF (CHF). This, in turn, prevents the development of clinical signs of volume overload, such as edema, even when the patient is in a hemodynamically congested state. Currently, the only endorsed methods for acute HF diagnosis in the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines are brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (class 1A), pre-discharge BNP or NT-proBNP (class IIA), and myocardial fibrosis markers (class IIB) [5]. McQuade et al revealed improved mortality outcomes and a decrease in hospitalization for a BNP level of 250 pg/mL or less, and for 30% decrease in serum levels of NT-proBNP prior to discharge [6]. However, serial testing of BNP to monitor response to therapy remains controversial. Moreover, an elevated BNP cannot be attributed solely to a cardiac cause; it is widely known that an elevated BNP may be related to advanced age, renal failure, obstructive sleep apnea, and critical illness. Similarly, elevated BNP may be seen in patients taking angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, which are gaining popularity following the PARADIGM HF Trial [7]. These factors limit the utilization of BNP levels for guiding management. A receiver-operator curve comparing BNP to the maximum diameter of the inferior vena cava (IVC) have shown that the maximum diameter of the IVC has a greater likelihood of correctly predicting the need for repeat hospitalization after inpatient therapy for acutely decompensated CHF [8].

Clinicians generally evaluate volume status in patients with HF by visualizing jugular venous distension to estimate right atrial pressure; a method with an estimated accuracy of only 50% and is a class IB recommendation by the American Heart Association (AHA) [9]. This technique suffers from several issues, including difficulty of assessment in obese individuals. Additionally, an imaging study found that the distance between the right atrium (RA) and the sternal angle varies between individuals and with patient position [10]. More recently, wireless implantable pulmonary arterial hemodynamic monitoring devices can be placed in the pulmonary arteries to determine intracardiac pressures. Results from the CHAMPIONS trial have shown 37% relative reduction in HF hospital admissions (P < 0.001) in patients who were treated based on data from these devices [11]. However, this technique is invasive, expensive, and may not be possible for high risk for patients. In summary, these methods are not ideal for assessing volume status in HF patients.

It has been shown that the IVC diameter strongly correlates with central venous pressure, and that distention of the IVC reflects an elevated right atrial pressure [12]. Assessment of the IVC diameter with a portable ultrasound has proven to be a simple, reliable, and cost-effective method of evaluating right atrial pressure. It is routinely used in multiple emergency departments across the country to elucidate volume status and guide management in HF patients [13]. A European study found that in patients admitted for HF exacerbations the IVC diameter at discharge was a better predictor of readmission than NT-proBNP [14]. Furthermore, another study showed that for every 0.5-cm increase in IVC diameter, the risk of readmission increased by 38% [15].

In addition to IVC diameter, IVC collapsibility is another measurement of interest from which the IVC collapsibility index (CI) is derived. CI is defined as the percent change in diameter of the IVC through a respiratory cycle, calculated as (IVC expiration - IVC inspiration)/IVC expiration × 100% [12]. A prospective study compared multiple techniques including IVC diameter, lung ultrasound, bioimpedance analysis, and NT-proBNP to monitor a cohort of HF patients. On multivariate analysis, they found that IVC collapse, NT-proBNP, and lung ultrasound, but not bioimpedance analysis, were useful in predicting patients at high rates of readmission [16]. New prospective data were recently published, which studied IVC diameter and CI at discharge and hospital follow-up, concluded that larger IVC diameters with less collapsibility were significantly associated with 90-day readmission [17]. This lends credence to the utility of following ultrasound measurement of the IVC at outpatient follow-up appointments in predicting hospital readmission. Despite this promising data, some drawbacks of this method include anatomical variations, such as obesity. It is also subjected to observer variability and quality of the ultrasound device being used.

The mainstay of treatment for acute decompensated HF is rescue therapy with diuretics, with monitoring of volume status. Nonetheless, there is no standardized method to assess the volume status of these patients which is reliable, reproducible, and non-invasive. Studies have shown there is no reduction in hospital readmission rates when relying on physician’s subjective findings alone [18]. IVC diameter and CI have been shown to reliably assess the effectiveness of diuretic therapy in patients with HF [3]. Patient education is also an important factor in the management of HF. The patients need to be counseled on lifestyle modifications and advised about the importance of self-monitoring, to look for the warning signs that might signal acute failure. They can be instructed to take an extra dose of diuretics if they are gaining weight, becoming short of breath on exertion or noticing an increase in lower extremity edema. The recent trend of wearable activity monitors, and smartphone applications may improve patient involvement and patient insight towards their condition, however they did not show any reduction in hospitalization rates [19].

In conclusion, patients hospitalized for a HF exacerbation remain at high risk for readmission. Efforts to reduce HF readmissions have become a large focus of national initiatives such as the “Get with the Guidelines^®” program, supported by the AHA. It has become evident that we need a more robust tool to reliably assess volume status in HF patients, both at hospital discharge and during routine follow-up. It has been postulated that assessing the IVC diameter with a portable ultrasound, may be answer to this problem. As more clinical data on the use of portable ultrasound in HF patients become available, there should be ongoing clarification regarding how best to utilize and implement this new tool at a population level.

Acknowledgments

None to declare.

Financial Disclosure

None of the authors have financial support.

Conflict of Interest

The authors of this manuscript have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions

All listed authors participated in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content.

Data Availability

The authors declare that data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

1. Go AS, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics - 2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014; 129:29-323.
2. Heidenreich PA, Albert NM, Allen LA, Bluemke DA, Butler J, Fonarow GC, Ikonomidis JS, et al. Forecasting the impact of heart failure in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6(3):606-619.
   doi pubmed
3. Yavasi O, Unluer EE, Kayayurt K, Ekinci S, Saglam C, Surum N, Koseoglu MH, et al. Monitoring the response to treatment of acute heart failure patients by ultrasonographic inferior vena cava collapsibility index. Am J Emerg Med. 2014;32(5):403-407.
   doi pubmed
4. Gheorghiade M, Zannad F, Sopko G, Klein L, Pina IL, Konstam MA, Massie BM, et al. Acute heart failure syndromes. Circulation. 2005;112(25):3958-3968.
   doi
5. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE, Jr., Colvin MM, Drazner MH, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA focused update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on clinical practice guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(6):776-803.
   doi pubmed
6. McQuade CN, Mizus M, Wald JW, Goldberg L, Jessup M, Umscheid CA. Brain-type natriuretic peptide and amino-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide discharge thresholds for acute decompensated heart failure: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(3):180-190.
   doi pubmed
7. McMurray JJ, Packer M, Desai AS, Gong J, Lefkowitz MP, Rizkala AR, Rouleau JL, et al. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(11):993-1004.
   doi pubmed
8. Goonewardena SN, Gemignani A, Ronan A, Vasaiwala S, Blair J, Brennan JM, Shah DP, et al. Comparison of hand-carried ultrasound assessment of the inferior vena cava and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide for predicting readmission after hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1(5):595-601.
   doi pubmed
9. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE, Jr., Drazner MH, Fonarow GC, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(16):e147-239.
10. Seth R, Magner P, Matzinger F, van Walraven C. How far is the sternal angle from the mid-right atrium? J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(11):861-865.
    doi pubmed
11. Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Bourge RC, Aaron MF, Costanzo MR, Stevenson LW, Strickland W, et al. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9766):658-666.
    doi
12. Khandwalla RM, Birkeland KT, Zimmer R, Henry TD, Nazarian R, Sudan M, Mirocha J, et al. Usefulness of serial measurements of inferior vena cava diameter by Vscan(TM) to identify patients with heart failure at high risk of hospitalization. Am J Cardiol. 2017;119(10):1631-1636.
    doi pubmed
13. Chardoli M, Ahmadi M, Shafe O, Bakhshandeh H. Inferior vena cava diameter as a guide in hypotensive patients for appropriate saline therapy: An observational study. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2018;8(3):160-164.
14. Carbone F, Bovio M, Rosa GM, Ferrando F, Scarrone A, Murialdo G, Quercioli A, et al. Inferior vena cava parameters predict re-admission in ischaemic heart failure. Eur J Clin Invest. 2014;44(4):341-349.
    doi pubmed
15. Miller JB, Sen A, Strote SR, Hegg AJ, Farris S, Brackney A, Amponsah D, et al. Inferior vena cava assessment in the bedside diagnosis of acute heart failure. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30(5):778-783.
    doi pubmed
16. Curbelo J, Rodriguez-Cortes P, Aguilera M, Gil-Martinez P, Martin D, Suarez Fernandez C. Comparison between inferior vena cava ultrasound, lung ultrasound, bioelectric impedance analysis, and natriuretic peptides in chronic heart failure. Curr Med Res Opin. 2019;35(4):705-713.
    doi pubmed
17. Akhabue E, Pierce JB, Davidson LJ, Prenner SB, Mutharasan RK, Puthumana JJ, Shah SJ, et al. A prospective pilot study of pocket-carried ultrasound pre- and postdischarge inferior vena cava assessment for prediction of heart failure rehospitalization. J Card Fail. 2018;24(9):614-617.
    doi pubmed
18. van Veldhuisen DJ, Braunschweig F, Conraads V, Ford I, Cowie MR, Jondeau G, Kautzner J, et al. Intrathoracic impedance monitoring, audible patient alerts, and outcome in patients with heart failure. Circulation. 2011;124(16):1719-1726.
    doi pubmed
19. Chaudhry SI, Mattera JA, Curtis JP, Spertus JA, Herrin J, Lin Z, Phillips CO, et al. Telemonitoring in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(24):2301-2309.
    doi pubmed

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Journal of Clinical Medicine Research is published by Elmer Press Inc.