|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
The accuracy of respiratory variation of the inferior vena cava (rvIVC) in predicting fluid responsiveness, particularly in spontaneously breathing patients is unclear.To consider the evidence to support the accuracy of rvIVC in identifying patients who are unlikely to benefit from fluid administration.Systematic review and meta-analysis.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, LILCAS and WHO Clinical Trial Registry from inception to June 2017.Case–control or cohort studies that evaluated the accuracy of rvIVC in living adult humans were included. A study was included in the meta-analysis if data enabling construction of 2 × 2 tables were reported, calculated or could be obtained from authors and met the above cited criteria.A total of 23 studies including 1574 patients were included in qualitative analysis. The meta-analysis involved 20 studies and 761 patients. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of rvIVC in 330 spontaneously breathing patients were 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.89] and 0.79 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.90). Pooled sensitivity and specificity of rvIVC in 431 mechanically ventilated patients were 0.79 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.86) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.76).Decreased inferior vena caval respiratory variation is moderately accurate in predicting fluid unresponsiveness both in spontaneous and mechanically ventilated patients. The findings of this review should be used in the appropriate clinical context and in conjunction with other clinical assessments of fluid status.CRD 42017068028.