scholarly journals Ultrasound assessment of central venous pressure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Deschamps ◽  
Jed Lipes ◽  
Andrew Weinstock ◽  
Dev Jayaraman ◽  
Lawrence Rudski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Central Venous Pressure ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Venous Pressure ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Care Systems ◽  
Ventilated Patients

Abstract Background Ultrasound is increasingly relied upon to estimate central venous pressure (CVP) in the echocardiography lab and using point-of-care systems in the intensive care unit and the emergency department. However, there is uncertainty regarding the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-based parameters as reported in diverse studies.Methods A systematic review was performed by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database for studies evaluating ultrasound-based indicators of filling pressures in relation to catheterization-based CVP. Studies were screened for predefined inclusion criteria and rated for quality by duplicate observers. Standardized correlation coefficients for each ultrasound-based indicator were meta-analyzed using a random effects model.Results 3949 articles were screened and 64 met the criteria for inclusion. Inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter was assessed in 34 study measures and the pooled standardized correlation with invasive CVP was 0.74 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.84). IVC collapsibility was assessed in 20 study measures and the pooled standardized correlation with invasive CVP was -0.57 (95% CI -0.70 to -0.44). Tricuspid E/Ep was assessed in 6 study measures and the pooled standardized correlation with invasive CVP was 0.59 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.93). IVC parameters but not E/Ep remained correlated with CVP in mechanically ventilated patients, including cardiac surgery patients. Results were similar in studies featuring non-traditional users and cardiac specialists.Conclusions Echocardiographic IVC diameter, collapsibility, and tricuspid E/Ep ratio are significantly correlated with invasive CVP, albeit with important heterogeneity between studies. Most of these indicators are equally valid when applied in ventilated patients and by non-traditional users.

scholarly journals Respiratory variation of inferior vena cava diameter and central venous pressure in ventilated and non-ventilated children in fluid refractory septic shock: an observational study

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 1947
Author(s):  
Mohd Kashif Ali ◽  
Eeman Naim
Keyword(s):  
Septic Shock ◽  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Central Venous Pressure ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Venous Pressure ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Mechanically Ventilated ◽  
Spontaneously Breathing ◽  
Ventilated Patients

Background: Ultrasound guided fluid assessment in management of septic shock has come up as an adjunct to the current gold standard Central Venous Pressure monitoring. This study was designed to observe the respiro-phasic variation of IVC diameter (RV-IVCD) in invasively mechanically ventilated and spontaneously breathing paediatric patients of fluid refractory septic shock.Methods: This was a prospective observational study done at Paediatric intensive Care Unit (PICU) in Paediatric ward of Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital (JNMCH) from February 2016 to June 2017. 107 consecutive patients between 1 year to 16 years age who were in shock despite 40ml/kg of fluid administration were included. Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) diameters were measured at end-expiration and end inspiration and the IVC collapsibility index was calculated. Simultaneously Central Venous Pressure (CVP) was recorded. Both values were obtained in ventilated and non-ventilated patients. Data was analysed to determine to look for the profile of RV-IVCD and CVP in ventilated and non-ventilated cases.Results: Out of 107 patients, 91 were on invasive mechanical ventilation and 16 patients were spontaneously breathing. There was a strong negative correlation between central venous pressure (CVP) and inferior vena cava collapsibility (RV-IVCD) in both spontaneously breathing (-0.810) and mechanically ventilated patients (-0.700). Negative correlation was significant in both study groups in CVP <8 mmHg and only in spontaneously breathing patients in CVP 8-12 mmHg range. IVC collapsibility showed a decreasing trend with rising CVP in both spontaneously breathing and mechanically ventilated patients.Conclusion: Ultrasonography guided IVCCI appears to be a valuable index in assessing fluid status in both spontaneously breathing and mechanically ventilated septic shock patients. However, more data is required from the paediatric population so as to define it as standard of practice.

scholarly journals Central venous pressure and liver resection: a systematic review and meta analysis

HPB ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. 863-871 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Hughes ◽  
Nicholas T. Ventham ◽  
Ewen M. Harrison ◽  
Stephen J. Wigmore
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Liver Resection ◽  
Central Venous Pressure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Venous Pressure ◽  
Central Venous

Central venous pressure monitoring via peripherally or centrally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filippo Sanfilippo ◽  
Alberto Noto ◽  
Gennaro Martucci ◽  
Marco Farbo ◽  
Gaetano Burgio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Central Venous Pressure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Venous Pressure ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Clinical Criteria ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Central Catheters

Introduction The central venous pressure (CVP) is the most commonly used static marker of preload for guiding fluid therapy in critically ill patients, though its usefulness remains controversial. Centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs) are the gold-standard devices for CVP monitoring but peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may represent a valid alternative. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim to investigate whether the difference between PICC- and CICC-measured CVP is not significant. Methods We searched for clinical studies published in PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception until December 21st 2016. We included studies providing data on paired and simultaneous CVP measurement from PICCs and CICCs. We conducted two analyses on the values of CVP, the first one according to the total number of CVP assessments, the second one considering the number of patients recruited. Results Four studies matched the inclusion criteria, but only three of them provided data for the meta-analyses. Both analyses showed non-significant differences between PICC-measured and CICC-measured CVP: 1489 paired simultaneous CVP assessments (MD 0.16, 95%CI −0.14, 0.45, p = 0.30) on a total of 57 patients (MD 0.22, 95%CI −1.46, 1.91, p = 0.80). Both analyses showed no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Conclusions Available evidence supports that CVP monitoring with PICCs is accurate and reproduces similar values to those obtained from CICCs. The possibility to monitor CVP should not be used among clinical criteria for preferring a CICC over a PICC line.

Ultrasonography of inferior vena cava to determine central venous pressure: a meta-analysis and meta-regression

2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 537-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mostafa Alavi-Moghaddam ◽  
Ali Kabir ◽  
Majid Shojaee ◽  
Mohammad Manouchehrifar ◽  
Mehrdad Moghimi
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Central Venous Pressure ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Venous Pressure ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Surrogate Variable ◽  
Meta Regression

Background Until now, no valid alternative exists for predicting central venous pressure (CVP) with lower invasiveness than central venous catheter. Purpose To explore inferior vena cava diameter (IVCD) measurement accuracy by ultrasonography as a surrogate variable for determination of central venous pressure (CVP). Material and Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar were conducted from inception to July 2013. We used the STROBE checklist for quality assessment and meta-regression. Results Thirty-seven papers with 2843 cases were identified. The correlation coefficients between each one of IVCD, inspiratory IVC (iIVC), IVC collapsibility index (IVCCI), and expiratory IVC (eIVC) with CVP, were 0.68, 0.60, 0.54, and 0.44, respectively. There was no evidence of publication bias ( P = 0.28). Based on meta-regression, male gender was an important source of heterogeneity (OR = 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 1–1.03), which resulted in a higher correlation between IVCD and CVP. The present study showed a higher strength of association with CVP pertaining to IVCD, iIVC, IVCCI, and eIVC, respectively, and they were higher in men. Conclusion This study does not support the measurement of IVCD by ultrasonography as an acceptable surrogate variable to determine CVP among critical patients.

Central venous pressure monitoring in critical care settings

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 230-236
Author(s):  
Barry Hill ◽  
Catherine Smith
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Central Venous Pressure ◽  
Right Atrium ◽  
Venous Pressure ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Haemodynamic Monitoring ◽  
Haemodynamic Instability ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
The Right

Patients who present with acute cardiovascular compromise require haemodynamic monitoring in a critical care unit. Central venous pressure (CVP) is the most frequently used measure to guide fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients. It is most often done via a central venous catheter (CVC) positioned in the right atrium or superior or inferior vena cava as close to the right atrium as possible. The CVC is inserted via the internal jugular vein, subclavian vein or via the femoral vein, depending on the patient and their condition. Complications of CVC placement can be serious, so its risks and benefits need to be considered. Alternative methods to CVC use include transpulmonary thermodilution and transoesophageal Doppler ultrasound. Despite its widespread use, CVP has been challenged in many studies, which have reported it to be a poor predictor of haemodynamic responsiveness. However, it is argued that CVP monitoring provides important physiologic information for the evaluation of haemodynamic instability. Nurses have central roles during catheter insertion and in CVP monitoring, as well as in managing these patients and assessing risks.

scholarly journals Measurement of Inferior Ven Cava Collapsibility Index and Its Correlation to Central Venous Pressure in Adult Critically Ill Patients a Prospective Observational Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Inferior Vena Cava ◽  
Central Venous Pressure ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Venous Pressure ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Volume Status ◽  
P Value ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Collapsibility Index ◽  
Status Assessment

Fluid therapy is an essential component part management of critically ill patients. Proper estimation of the amount of needed fluids is of great importance due to the well-established adverse effects of marked negative and positive fluids balance. Central venous pressure has been widely used by ICU physicians for volume status assessment. Several methods have been postulated for volume status assessment, among which is the inferior vena cava collapsibility index. As the inferior vena cava is a thin-walled capacitance vessel that adjusts to the body’s volume status by changing its diameter depending on the total body fluid volume. Giving the fact that bed-side ultrasonographic measurement of inferior vena cava diameters is an available, non-invasive, reproducible and quiet easy-to-learn technique, it can provide a safe and quiet reliable replacement of central venous pressure measurement for assessment of volume status assessment. The aim of this study was to find statistical correlation between central venous pressure and caval index, as a step towards validating the above mentioned replacement. 86 critically ill patients from ICU population were enrolled. Simultaneous measurements of central venous pressure and inferior vena cava collapsibility index were observed and recorded on four sessions. Patients were also grouped based on their mode of ventilation and central venous pressure values in order to compare the strength of correlation between various populations. The results showed that Inferior vena cava collapsibility index has significant inverse correlation with CVP value (r= -85, p value ˂0.001 at 95% CI) and it better correlated with mean arterial blood pressure and lactate clearance as compared to central venous pressure. However it correlated better with CVP in spontaneously breathing patients (r= -0.86, p value ˂0.001) than in mechanically ventilated patients (r= -0.84, p value ˂0.001). Inferior vena cava collapsibility index has shown to correlate better with CVP value in lower values (˂ 10 cmH2O) (r= -0.8, p value ˂0.001) than in higher values (≥ 10 cmH2O) (r= -0.6, p value ˂0.001). In addition, an inferior vena caval collapsibility index cut-off value of 29% was shown to discriminate between CVP values ˂10 cmH2O and values ≥10 cmH2O with high Sensitivity (88.6%) and specificity (80.4%). In conclusion, inferior vena cava collapsibility index has a strong inverse relationship with central venous pressure which is more pronounced at low central venous pressure values. Point-of-care ultrasonographically-measured inferior vena cava collapsibility index is very likely to be a good alternative to central venous pressure measurement with a high degree of precision and reproducibility. However, Wide scale studies are needed to validate its use in different patient populations.

Ultrasound Guided Noninvasive Measurement of Central Venous Pressure

2008 ◽  
pp. 1331-1337
Author(s):  
Vikram Aggarwal ◽  
Yoonju Cho ◽  
Aniruddha Chatterjee ◽  
Dickson Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Central Venous Pressure ◽  
Venous Pressure ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Heart Association ◽  
Systemic Circulation ◽  
The Body ◽  
Physiological Parameter ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Mean Pressure

Central venous pressure (CVP) is a measure of the mean pressure within the thoracic vena cava, which is the largest vein in the body and responsible for returning blood from the systemic circulation to the heart. CVP is a major determinant of the filling pressure and cardiac preload, and like any fluid pump, the heart depends on an adequate preload to function effectively. Low venous return translates into a lower preload and a drop in overall cardiac output, a relationship described by the Frank-Starling Mechanism. CVP is an important physiological parameter, the correct measure of which is a clinically relevant diagnostic tool for heart failure patients. In addition to other vitals such as heart rate and mean arterial pressure, accurate measures of central venous pressure through simple diagnostic instrumentation would provide physicians with a clear picture of cardiac functionality, and allow for more targeted treatment. Recent literature has also shown that measuring CVP can be an important hemodynamic indicator for the early identification and treatment of more widespread conditions, such as sepsis (Rivers, Nguyen, Havstad, & Ressler, 2001). With over five million patients (American Heart Association, http://www.americanheart.org/presenter. jhtml) in the U.S. presenting with heart failure-like symptoms annually, a current challenge for physicians is to obtain a quick and accurate measure of a patient’s central venous pressure in a manner that poses minimum discomfort.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document