Literature DB >> 26650057

Systematic review including re-analyses of 1148 individual data sets of central venous pressure as a predictor of fluid responsiveness.

T G Eskesen1, M Wetterslev1, A Perner2.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Central venous pressure; Critical illness; Fluid therapy; Haemodynamics; Intensive care

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26650057     DOI: 10.1007/s00134-015-4168-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intensive Care Med        ISSN: 0342-4642            Impact factor:   17.440


  67 in total

1.  Evaluation of pulse pressure variation validity criteria in critically ill patients: a prospective observational multicentre point-prevalence study.

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

2.  Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of pulse pressure variations for the prediction of fluid responsiveness: a "gray zone" approach.

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

Review 3.  Predicting fluid responsiveness with transthoracic echocardiography is not yet evidence based.

Authors:  M Wetterslev; N Haase; R R Johansen; A Perner
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 2.105

4.  Fluid responsiveness: an evolution of our understanding.

Authors:  P E Marik; J Lemson
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2014-02-16       Impact factor: 9.166

5.  Pulse-pressure variation predicts fluid responsiveness during heart displacement for off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.

Authors:  Jong-Hwan Lee; Yunseok Jeon; Jae-Hyon Bahk; Nam-Su Gil; Ki-Bong Kim; Deok Man Hong; Hyun Joo Kim
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth       Date:  2011-09-15       Impact factor: 2.628

Review 6.  Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares.

Authors:  Paul E Marik; Michael Baram; Bobbak Vahid
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 9.410

7.  The influence of the airway driving pressure on pulsed pressure variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness.

Authors:  Laurent Muller; Guillaume Louart; Philippe-Jean Bousquet; Damien Candela; Lana Zoric; Jean-Emmanuel de La Coussaye; Samir Jaber; Jean-Yves Lefrant
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2009-10-22       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  Arterial pressure changes during the Valsalva maneuver to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients.

Authors:  Manuel Ignacio Monge García; Anselmo Gil Cano; Juan Carlos Díaz Monrové
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2008-10-02       Impact factor: 17.440

9.  Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients.

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

10.  Cardiac filling volumes versus pressures for predicting fluid responsiveness after cardiovascular surgery: the role of systolic cardiac function.

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

View more
  47 in total

1.  Value of CVP: an epidemiological or physiological question?

Authors:  S Magder
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-01-27       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Fluid administration for acute circulatory dysfunction using basic monitoring: narrative review and expert panel recommendations from an ESICM task force.

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

3.  Less invasive hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients.

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

4.  Is the concept of fluid responsiveness evidence-based? Response to comments by Saleh.

Authors:  Anders Perner
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-05-03       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  Is the concept of fluid responsiveness evidence-based?

Authors:  Ahmad Sabry Saleh
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-05-03       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 6.  The surviving sepsis campaign: fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy research priorities in adult patients.

Authors:  Ishaq Lat; Craig M Coopersmith; Daniel De Backer; Craig M Coopersmith
Journal:  Intensive Care Med Exp       Date:  2021-03-01

7.  The ten wishes and hopes of the deputy editors of Intensive Care Medicine.

Authors:  Giuseppe Citerio; Anders Perner; Jean-Francois Timsit
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  Focus on fluid therapy.

Authors:  Anders Perner; Peter B Hjortrup; Ville Pettilä
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-10-05       Impact factor: 17.440

9.  Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

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

10.  Utilization of echocardiography during septic shock was associated with a decreased 28-day mortality: a propensity score-matched analysis of the MIMIC-III database.

Authors:  Peng Lan; Ting-Ting Wang; Hang-Yang Li; Ru-Shuang Yan; Wei-Chao Liao; Bu-Wen Yu; Qian-Qian Wang; Ling Lin; Kong-Han Pan; Yun-Song Yu; Jian-Cang Zhou
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.