OBJECTIVE: To determine the degree of agreement between central venous pressure (CVP) and peripheral venous pressure (PVP) in surgical patients. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING:University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients without cardiac dysfunction undergoing major elective noncardiac surgery (n = 150). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Simultaneous CVP and PVP measurements were obtained at random points in mechanically ventilated patients during surgery (n = 100) and in spontaneously ventilating patients in the postanesthesia care unit (n = 50). In a subset of 10 intraoperative patients, measurements were made before and after a 2-L fluid challenge. During surgery, PVP correlated highly to CVP (r = 0.86), and the bias (mean difference between CVP and PVP) was -1.6 +/- 1.7 mmHg (mean +/- SD). In the postanesthesia care unit, PVP also correlated highly to CVP (r = 0.88), and the bias was -2.2 +/- 1.9 (mean +/- SD). When adjusted by the average bias of -2, PVP predicted the observed CVP to within +/-3 mmHg in both populations of patients with 95% probability. In patients receiving a fluid challenge, PVP and CVP increased similarly from 6 +/- 2 to 11 +/- 2 mmHg and 4 +/- 2 to 9 +/- 2 mmHg. CONCLUSION: Under the conditions of this study, PVP showed a consistent and high degree of agreement with CVP in the perioperative period in patients without significant cardiac dysfunction. PVP -2 was useful in predicting CVP over common clinical ranges of CVP. PVP is a rapid noninvasive tool to estimate volume status in surgical patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the degree of agreement between central venous pressure (CVP) and peripheral venous pressure (PVP) in surgical patients. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients without cardiac dysfunction undergoing major elective noncardiac surgery (n = 150). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Simultaneous CVP and PVP measurements were obtained at random points in mechanically ventilated patients during surgery (n = 100) and in spontaneously ventilating patients in the postanesthesia care unit (n = 50). In a subset of 10 intraoperative patients, measurements were made before and after a 2-L fluid challenge. During surgery, PVP correlated highly to CVP (r = 0.86), and the bias (mean difference between CVP and PVP) was -1.6 +/- 1.7 mmHg (mean +/- SD). In the postanesthesia care unit, PVP also correlated highly to CVP (r = 0.88), and the bias was -2.2 +/- 1.9 (mean +/- SD). When adjusted by the average bias of -2, PVP predicted the observed CVP to within +/-3 mmHg in both populations of patients with 95% probability. In patients receiving a fluid challenge, PVP and CVP increased similarly from 6 +/- 2 to 11 +/- 2 mmHg and 4 +/- 2 to 9 +/- 2 mmHg. CONCLUSION: Under the conditions of this study, PVP showed a consistent and high degree of agreement with CVP in the perioperative period in patients without significant cardiac dysfunction. PVP -2 was useful in predicting CVP over common clinical ranges of CVP. PVP is a rapid noninvasive tool to estimate volume status in surgical patients.
Authors: Anna Maria Bombardieri; James Beckman; Pamela Shaw; Federico P Girardi; Yan Ma; Stavros G Memtsoudis Journal: J Clin Anesth Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 9.452
Authors: Roger Desjardins; André Y Denault; Sylvain Bélisle; Michel Carrier; Denis Babin; Sylvie Lévesque; Raymond Martineau Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2003-11-05 Impact factor: 17.440