4.2 Article

Age-Related Decrease in Inferior Vena Cava Diameter Measured with Echocardiography

期刊

TOHOKU JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 222, 期 2, 页码 141-147

出版社

TOHOKU UNIV MEDICAL PRESS
DOI: 10.1620/tjem.222.141

关键词

inferior vena cava diameter; echocardiography; cardiac preload; aging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The diameter of the inferior vena cave (IVC) measured with echocardiography is clinically used as a parameter to estimate right atrial pressure, which reflects dehydration or overhydration. Because elderly patients fall easily into dehydration, normal values for IVC diameters in elderly patients may be helpful for geriatric medicine. However, normal values of IVC diameter in relation to age have not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to elucidate age-related changes in IVC diameter using echocardiography. Enrolled in the study were 200 patients (67 +/- 15 yrs: range 17-94 yrs) with cardiovascular risk factors but no overt cardiac diseases. IVC diameters throughout the respiratory cycle were measured as maximum and minimum IVC diameters (IVCmax, IVCmin) using M-mode echocardiography. To assess IVC collapsibility, the respirophasic variation of IVC diameter was calculated as (IVCmax - IVCmin)/(IVCmax)x 100. Maximum IVC diameter was decreased with advancing age (r = 0.221, p = 0.002). The respirophasic variation of the IVC diameter was increased with advancing age (r = 0.244, p = 0.001). Stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that age was an independent determinant for both maximum IVC diameter (beta coefficient = -0.249, p < 0.001) and respirophasic variation of the IVC diameter (beta coefficient = 0.268, p < 0.001). Age-related decrease in maximum IVC diameter and increase in the respirophasic IVC collapsibility may indicate the decrease in right atrial pressure in some elderly patients. Therefore, elderly patients with decreased maximum IVC and increased respirophasic IVC collapsibility may need prevention for dehydration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据