T G Eskesen1, M Wetterslev1, A Perner2. 1. Department of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Department of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. anders.perner@rh.regionh.dk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Central venous pressure (CVP) has been shown to have poor predictive value for fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients. We aimed to re-evaluate this in a larger sample subgrouped by baseline CVP values. METHODS: In April 2015, we systematically searched and included all clinical studies evaluating the value of CVP in predicting fluid responsiveness. We contacted investigators for patient data sets. We subgrouped data as lower (<8 mmHg), intermediate (8-12 mmHg) and higher (>12 mmHg) baseline CVP. RESULTS: We included 51 studies; in the majority, mean/median CVP values were in the intermediate range (8-12 mmHg) in both fluid responders and non-responders. In an analysis of patient data sets (n = 1148) from 22 studies, the area under the receiver operating curve was above 0.50 in the <8 mmHg CVP group [0.57 (95% CI 0.52-0.62)] in contrast to the 8-12 mmHg and >12 mmHg CVP groups in which the lower 95% CI crossed 0.50. We identified some positive and negative predictive value for fluid responsiveness for specific low and high values of CVP, respectively, but none of the predictive values were above 66% for any CVPs from 0 to 20 mmHg. There were less data on higher CVPs, in particular >15 mmHg, making the estimates on predictive values less precise for higher CVP. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies evaluating fluid responsiveness reported mean/median CVP values in the intermediate range of 8-12 mmHg both in responders and non-responders. In a re-analysis of 1148 patient data sets, specific lower and higher CVP values had some positive and negative predictive value for fluid responsiveness, respectively, but predictive values were low for all specific CVP values assessed.
PURPOSE: Central venous pressure (CVP) has been shown to have poor predictive value for fluid responsiveness in critically illpatients. We aimed to re-evaluate this in a larger sample subgrouped by baseline CVP values. METHODS: In April 2015, we systematically searched and included all clinical studies evaluating the value of CVP in predicting fluid responsiveness. We contacted investigators for patient data sets. We subgrouped data as lower (<8 mmHg), intermediate (8-12 mmHg) and higher (>12 mmHg) baseline CVP. RESULTS: We included 51 studies; in the majority, mean/median CVP values were in the intermediate range (8-12 mmHg) in both fluid responders and non-responders. In an analysis of patient data sets (n = 1148) from 22 studies, the area under the receiver operating curve was above 0.50 in the <8 mmHg CVP group [0.57 (95% CI 0.52-0.62)] in contrast to the 8-12 mmHg and >12 mmHg CVP groups in which the lower 95% CI crossed 0.50. We identified some positive and negative predictive value for fluid responsiveness for specific low and high values of CVP, respectively, but none of the predictive values were above 66% for any CVPs from 0 to 20 mmHg. There were less data on higher CVPs, in particular >15 mmHg, making the estimates on predictive values less precise for higher CVP. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies evaluating fluid responsiveness reported mean/median CVP values in the intermediate range of 8-12 mmHg both in responders and non-responders. In a re-analysis of 1148 patient data sets, specific lower and higher CVP values had some positive and negative predictive value for fluid responsiveness, respectively, but predictive values were low for all specific CVP values assessed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Central venous pressure; Critical illness; Fluid therapy; Haemodynamics; Intensive care
Authors: Y Mahjoub; V Lejeune; L Muller; S Perbet; L Zieleskiewicz; F Bart; B Veber; C Paugam-Burtz; S Jaber; A Ayham; E Zogheib; S Lasocki; A Vieillard-Baron; H Quintard; O Joannes-Boyau; G Plantefève; P Montravers; S Duperret; M Lakhdari; N Ammenouche; E Lorne; M Slama; H Dupont Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2013-12-29 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Maxime Cannesson; Yannick Le Manach; Christoph K Hofer; Jean Pierre Goarin; Jean-Jacques Lehot; Benoît Vallet; Benoît Tavernier Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Christophe Barbier; Yann Loubières; Christophe Schmit; Jan Hayon; Jean-Louis Ricôme; François Jardin; Antoine Vieillard-Baron Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-03-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Ronald J Trof; Ibrahim Danad; Mikel W L Reilingh; Rose-Marieke B G E Breukers; A B Johan Groeneveld Journal: Crit Care Date: 2011-02-25 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Maurizio Cecconi; Glenn Hernandez; Martin Dunser; Massimo Antonelli; Tim Baker; Jan Bakker; Jacques Duranteau; Sharon Einav; A B Johan Groeneveld; Tim Harris; Sameer Jog; Flavia R Machado; Mervyn Mer; M Ignacio Monge García; Sheila Nainan Myatra; Anders Perner; Jean-Louis Teboul; Jean-Louis Vincent; Daniel De Backer Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jean-Louis Teboul; Bernd Saugel; Maurizio Cecconi; Daniel De Backer; Christoph K Hofer; Xavier Monnet; Azriel Perel; Michael R Pinsky; Daniel A Reuter; Andrew Rhodes; Pierre Squara; Jean-Louis Vincent; Thomas W Scheeren Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-05-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Andrew Rhodes; Laura E Evans; Waleed Alhazzani; Mitchell M Levy; Massimo Antonelli; Ricard Ferrer; Anand Kumar; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Mark E Nunnally; Bram Rochwerg; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Derek C Angus; Djillali Annane; Richard J Beale; Geoffrey J Bellinghan; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig Coopersmith; Daniel P De Backer; Craig J French; Seitaro Fujishima; Herwig Gerlach; Jorge Luis Hidalgo; Steven M Hollenberg; Alan E Jones; Dilip R Karnad; Ruth M Kleinpell; Younsuk Koh; Thiago Costa Lisboa; Flavia R Machado; John J Marini; John C Marshall; John E Mazuski; Lauralyn A McIntyre; Anthony S McLean; Sangeeta Mehta; Rui P Moreno; John Myburgh; Paolo Navalesi; Osamu Nishida; Tiffany M Osborn; Anders Perner; Colleen M Plunkett; Marco Ranieri; Christa A Schorr; Maureen A Seckel; Christopher W Seymour; Lisa Shieh; Khalid A Shukri; Steven Q Simpson; Mervyn Singer; B Taylor Thompson; Sean R Townsend; Thomas Van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; W Joost Wiersinga; Janice L Zimmerman; R Phillip Dellinger Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 17.440