Decongestion guided through Doppler Ultrasound of the Supra-hepatic Vein by Transesophageal Echocardiography in a Kidney Transplant Patient: Clinical case.
Main Article Content
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The hepatic vein decongestion is a crucial aspect in the management of various liver and cardiac conditions, where excessive blond accumulation in the liver can lead to serious complications such as portal hypertension and liver failure. The hepatic vein, responsible for blood draining from the liver to the general circulation, can be affected by a pathologies variety that alter its functionality and consequently, the venous return.
CASE REPORT Scenario: A 32-year-old female patient (56 kg, 1.55 m) with a chronic kidney disease history in pre-dialysis without renal function replacement treatment underwent an anticipated related living donor kidney transplant. The procedure is performed under balanced general anesthesia according to the standards of the Hospital Juarez de México with type III monitoring with transesophageal echocardiography with Mindray TE7 Ultrasound, Edwards Hemosphere and GE Vital Signs Monitor.
During kidney transplantation, type I monitoring (GE monitor) is performed: Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR); Type II monitoring (Hemosphere/Edwards): Central venous pressure (CVP), mean systemic filling pressure (MSFP), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (CO), stroke volume variability (SVV); Type III monitoring with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE/MindrayTE7): End-systolic volume (ESV), end-diastolic volume (EDV) and ejection fraction (LVEF) and supra-hepatic vein doppler velocity from baseline on “S” and “D” wave. Measurements were made during all different kidney transplantation stages.
Before Reperfusion in Kidney Transplantation: SBP 133mmHg, DBP 76mmHg, TAM 95mmHg, HR 69bpm, CVP15mmHg, MSFP20.04mmHg, SV89ml/min, CO6.14lt/min, SVR 1041dynas/cm3, SVV11%, CP1.29J/min, EH0.25, EDV149ml/min, ESV60l/min, LVEF59.7%, AE1.34, VE2.0, AoV0.67. When measuring the values by Doppler ultrasound of the “S” and “D” waves, they were 37.22cm/s and 41.44cm/s, so the S/D Index is 0.9
Reperfusion (1st minute): SBP124mmHg, TAD75mmHg, MAP91mmHg, HR67bpm, CVP13mmHg, MSFP17.76mmHg, SV81ml/min, CO5.43lt/min, SVR1154dynas/cm3), SVV12%, CP1.1J/min, EH0.27, EDV136ml. /min, ESV55ml/min, LVEF59.6%, AE1.38, VE2.03, AoV0.68. When measuring the values by Doppler ultrasound of the “S” and “D” waves were 39.94cm/s and 32.14cm/s, so the S/D index is 1.24.
DISCUSSION: When the patient presents dynamic fluid overload (before reperfusion), the “S” wave decreases its amplitude/velocity and thus the right ventricle capacity to manage hepatic venous flow during systole. In this case “D” wave, shows a low velocity flow during diastole, so in congestion due to the increase in portal pressure the retrograde velocity increases and therefore the S<D pattern, and S/D index is less than 1.
CONCLUSION: Hepatic vein doppler is a valuable tool in the management of fluid de-escalation in kidney transplant patients.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
I. Messina A, Chew MS, Poole D et al (2024) Consistency of data reporting in fluid responsiveness studies in the critically ill setting: the CODEFIRE consensus from the Cardiovascular Dynamic section of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med.
II. Prager R, Arntfield R, Wong MYS et al (2024) Venous congestion in septic shock quantified with point-of-care ultrasound: a pilot prospective multicentre cohort study. Can J Anaesth.
III. Messina A, Caporale M, Calabrò L et al (2023) Reliability of pulse pressure and stroke volume variation in assessing fluid responsiveness in the operating room: a metanalysis and a metaregression. Crit Care 27:431.
IV. Cheong I, Amador EDO, Gómez RA et al (2023) Evaluating the utility of portal vein pulsatility index for detecting fluid unresponsiveness in the intensive care unit. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 37:1677–1682.
V. Longino A, Martin K, Leyba K et al (2023) Correlation between the VExUS score and right atrial pressure: a pilot prospective observational study. Crit Care 27:205.
VI. Zhang H, Liu Y, Zhang Q et al (2022) Hepatic vein Doppler in critically ill patients: a reflection of central venous pressure or right ventricular systolic function? BMC Anesthesiol 22:1–9.
VII. Persichini R, Lai C, Teboul JL et al (2022) Venous return and mean systemic filling pressure: physiology and clinical applications. Crit Care 26:1–11.
VIII. Bakker J, Kattan E, Annane D et al (2022) Current practice and evolving concepts in septic shock resuscitation. Intensive Care Med 48:148–163.
IX. Monnet X, Shi R, Teboul JL (2022) Prediction of fluid responsiveness. What’s new? Ann Intensive Care 12:46.
X. Shi R, Moretto F, Prat D et al (2022) Dynamic changes of pulse pressure but not of pulse pressure variation during passive leg raising predict preload responsiveness in critically ill patients with spontaneous breathing activity. J Crit Care 72:154141.
XI. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W et al (2021) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med.
XII. Blanco P (2020) Rationale for using the velocity–time integral and the minute distance for assessing the stroke volume and cardiac output in point-of-care settings. Ultrasound J 12:21.
XIII. Provenzano M, Rivoli L, Garofalo C et al (2020) Renal resistive index in chronic kidney disease patients: possible determinants and risk profile. PLoS ONE 15:1–14.
XIV. Iranpour P, Lall C, Houshyar R et al (2016) Altered Doppler flow patterns in cirrhosis patients: an overview. Ultrasonography 35:3–12
XV. Bang DH, Son Y, Lee YH, Yoon KH (2014) Doppler ultrasonography measurement of hepatic hemodynamics during Valsalva maneuver: healthy volunteer study. Ultrasonography 34:32–38.