Article

How to use central venous pressure measurements.

McGill University Health Centre, Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Current Opinion in Critical Care (Impact Factor: 2.97). 07/2005; 11(3):264-70. DOI: 10.1097/01.ccx.0000163197.70010.33
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Central venous pressure is a very common clinical measurement, but it is frequently misunderstood and misused. As with all hemodynamic measurements, it is important to understand its basic principles.
This analysis indicates that it is best to always consider the significance of central venous pressure in the context of the corresponding cardiac output. Even more important is the use of dynamic measures to interpret the meaning of the central venous pressure. This includes the hemodynamic response to fluid load, respiratory variations in central venous pressure, and even the change in central venous pressure with changes in the patient's overall status.
The clinical application of central venous pressure measurement requires a good understanding of the concept of the interaction of the function of the heart with the function of the return of blood to the heart.

2 Bookmarks
 · 
397 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Major hepatic resections may result in hemodynamic changes. Aim is to study transesophageal Doppler (TED) monitoring and fluid management in comparison to central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring. A follow-up comparative hospital based study. 59 consecutive cirrhotic patients (CHILD A) undergoing major hepatotomy. CVP monitoring only (CVP group), (n=30) and TED (Doppler group), (n=29) with CVP transduced but not available on the monitor. Exclusion criteria include contra-indication for Doppler probe insertion or bleeding tendency. An attempt to reduce CVP during the resection in both groups with colloid restriction, but crystalloids infusion of 6 ml/kg/h was allowed to replace insensible loss. Post-resection colloids infusion were CVP guided in CVP group (5-10 mmHg) and corrected flow time (FTc) aortic guided in Doppler group (>0.4 s) blood products given according to the laboratory data. Using the FTc to guide Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 significantly decreased intake in TED versus CVP (1.03 [0.49] versus 1.74 [0.41] Liter; P<0.05). Nausea, vomiting, and chest infection were less in TED with a shorter hospital stay (P<0.05). No correlation between FTc and CVP (r=0.24, P > 0.05). Cardiac index and stroke volume of TED increased post-resection compared to baseline, 3.0 (0.9) versus 3.6 (0.9) L/min/m(2), P<0.05; 67.1 (14.5) versus 76 (13.2) ml, P<0.05, respectively, associated with a decrease in systemic vascular resistance (SVR) 1142.7 (511) versus 835.4 (190.9) dynes.s/cm(5), P<0.05. No significant difference in arterial pressure and CVP between groups at any stage. CVP during resection in TED 6.4 (3.06) mmHg versus 6.1 (1.4) in CVP group, P=0.6. TED placement consumed less time than CVP (7.3 [1.5] min versus 13.2 [2.9], P<0.05). TED in comparison to the CVP monitoring was able to reduced colloids administration post-resection, lower morbidity and shorten hospital stay. TED consumed less time to insert and was also able to present significant hemodynamic changes. Advanced surgical techniques of resection play a key role in reducing blood loss despite CVP more than 5 cm H2O. TED fluid management protocols during resection need to be developed.
    Saudi journal of anaesthesia. 01/2013; 7(4):378-386.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The assessment of whether a patient is fluid responsive can be difficult in clinical practice. Invasive filling pressures are inadequate indicators of preload and fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients. Dynamic indices may be unreliable in clinical practice because of arrhythmias or spontaneous breathing efforts. Elevation of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) causes cardiorespiratory interactions, which may produce signs of hypovolaemia. Our aim was to assess whether haemodynamic changes during a short elevation of PEEP would predict fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock. Methods: We performed a prospective observational study in 20 patients with septic shock on mechanical ventilation. We assessed the following changes in haemodynamic variables during a temporary elevation of PEEP from 10 cm H2O to 20 cm H2O during an end-expiratory pause: mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic arterial pressure, pulse pressure, central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, left ventricular end diastolic area and aortic velocity–time integral. We defined fluid responsiveness as an increase in cardiac output of 15% to a subsequent fluid challenge. Results: Decrease in MAP related to elevation of PEEP predicted fluid responsiveness (P = 0.003). The best cut-off value of ΔMAP for clinical use was –8%, with a negative predictive value for fluid responsiveness of 100%. Conclusion: In patients with septic shock, the absence of decrease in MAP during an elevation of PEEP may be used to identify patients who will not increase their cardiac output in response to fluid challenge.
    Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 11/2013; · 2.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The assessment of the circulating volume and efficiency of tissue perfusion is necessary in the management of critically ill patients. The controversy surrounding pulmonary artery catheterization has led to a new wave of minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring technologies, including echocardiographic and Doppler imaging, pulse wave analysis, and bioimpedance. This article reviews the principles, advantages, and limitations of these technologies and the clinical contexts in which they may be clinically useful.
    Critical care clinics. 07/2014; 30(3):413-445.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
8,022 Downloads
Available from
May 27, 2014