Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Mar;42(3):324-332.
doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-4168-4. Epub 2015 Dec 9.

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

Affiliations

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

T G Eskesen et al. Intensive Care Med. 2016 Mar.

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.

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

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Minerva Anestesiol. 2012 May;78(5):527-33 - PubMed
    1. Anesthesiology. 2007 Jun;106(6):1105-11 - PubMed
    1. BMC Anesthesiol. 2013 Jun 22;13:12 - PubMed
    1. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2015 Apr;19(4):220-6 - PubMed
    1. Crit Care Med. 2011 Feb;39(2):259-65 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources