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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The estimation of extra-vascular lung water (EVLW) is an essential component in the assessment of critically ill patients. EVLW is independently associated with mortality and its manipulation has been shown to improve outcome. Accurate assessment of lung water is possible with CT and MR imaging but these are impractical for real-time measurement in sick patients and have been superseded by single thermal dilution techniques. While useful, single thermo-dilution requires repeated calibration and is prone to error, suggesting a need for other monitoring methods. Traditionally the lung was not thought amenable to ultrasound examination owing to the high acoustic impedance of air; however, the identification of artefacts in diseased lung has led to increased use of ultrasound as a point of care investigation for both diagnosis and to monitor response to interventions. Following the initial description of B-lines in association with increased lung water, accumulating evidence has shown that they are a useful and responsive measure of the presence and dynamic changes in EVLW. Animal models have confirmed a correlation with lung gravimetry and the utility of B-lines has been demonstrated in many clinical situations and correlated against other established measures of EVLW. With increasing availability and expertise the role of ultrasound in estimating EVLW should be embedded in clinical practice and incorporated into clinical algorithms to aid decision making. This review looks at the evidence for ultrasound as a valid, easy to use, non-invasive point of care investigation to assess EVLW.
    Critical care (London, England) 09/2013; 17(5):237. · 4.72 Impact Factor
  • [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 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

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 27, 2014