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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The causes of hemodynamic instability in acute pancreatitis are numerous. Although pericardial effusion during pancreatitis is common, a cardiac tamponade is rarely reported. The diagnosis of compressive cardiac disorders (CDD) by echocardiography is easily reported when the patient is breathing spontaneously; it becomes difficult when the patient is assisted with positive pressure ventilation.
    Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation 10/2013; · 0.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The difference between mean systemic filling (Pmsf) and central venous pressure (CVP) is the venous return gradient (dVR). The aim of this study is to assess the significance of the Pmsf analogue (Pmsa) and the dVR during a fluid challenge. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study in postsurgical patients. Patients were monitored with a central venous catheter, a LiDCO™plus and the Navigator™. A 250-ml intravenous fluid challenge was given over 5 min. A positive response to the fluid challenge was defined as either a stroke volume (SV) or cardiac output increase of greater than 10 %. RESULTS: A total of 101 fluid challenges were observed in 39 patients. In 43 events (42.6 %) the SV and CO increased by more than 10 %. Pmsa increased similarly during a fluid challenge in responders and non-responders (3.1 ± 1.9 vs. 3.1 ± 1.8, p = 0.9), whereas the dVR increased in responders (1.16 ± 0.8 vs. 0.2 ± 1, p < 0.001) as among non-responders CVP increased along with Pmsa (2.9 ± 1.7 vs. 3.1 ± 1.8, p = 0.15). Resistance to venous return did not change immediately after a fluid challenge. Heart performance (Eh) decreased significantly among non-responders (0.41 ± 0.15 vs. 0.34 ± 0.13, p < 0.001) whereas among responders it did not change when compared with baseline value (0.35 ± 0.15 vs. 0.34 ± 0.12, p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: The changes in Pmsa and dVR measured at the bedside during a fluid challenge are consistent with the cardiovascular model described by Guyton.
    European Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 05/2013; · 5.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Interactions between the heart and lungs are magnified in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and the consequences of these interactions always need to be considered when managing ventilated patients. In patients with normal lungs and normal cardiovascular function monitoring needs are minimal, but when oxygenation and cardiac function are compromised careful assessment of the consequences of changes in ventilator settings needs to be considered to ensure that adequate oxygen delivery is maintained. Primary determinants of heart-lung interactions are first reviewed and then approaches to the use of simple hemodynamic measurements such as respiratory variations in central venous and pulmonary artery occlusion, or arterial pressure are described for assessing oxygen delivery, volume responsiveness as well as indicators of ventilatory mechanics. Use of simple measurements available during routine monitoring can be very helpful to the informed clinician for optimizing hemodynamic performance as well as patient ventilator interactions.
    Current opinion in critical care 02/2011; 17(1):36-42. · 2.67 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 27, 2014