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
Review
. 2018 Jun 28;8(3):61-67.
doi: 10.5500/wjt.v8.i3.61.

Utility of central venous pressure measurement in renal transplantation: Is it evidence based?

Affiliations
Review

Utility of central venous pressure measurement in renal transplantation: Is it evidence based?

Ahmed Aref et al. World J Transplant. .

Abstract

Adequate intravenous fluid therapy is essential in renal transplant recipients to ensure a good allograft perfusion. Central venous pressure (CVP) has been considered the cornerstone to guide the fluid therapy for decades; it was the only available simple tool worldwide. However, the revolutionary advances in assessing the dynamic preload variables together with the availability of new equipment to precisely measure the effect of intravenous fluids on the cardiac output had created a question mark on the future role of CVP. Despite the critical role of fluid therapy in the field of transplantation. There are only a few clinical studies that compared the CVP guided fluid therapy with the other modern techniques and their relation to the outcome in renal transplantation. Our work sheds some light on the available published data in renal transplantation, together with data from other disciplines evaluating the utility of central venous pressure measurement. Although lager well-designed studies are still required to consolidate the role of new techniques in the field of renal transplantation, we can confidently declare that the new techniques have the advantages of providing more accurate haemodynamic assessment, which results in a better patient outcome.

Keywords: Central venous pressure; Fluid monitoring; Renal transplantation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict-of-interest statement: There is no conflict of interest associated with any of the senior author or other co-authors contributed their efforts in this manuscript.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Monitoring parameters used by intensive care unit physicians[6]. BP: Intra-arterial blood pressure; CVP: Central venous pressure; CVP oxy: Continuous monitoring of central venous oxygen saturation; Foley: Foley catheter; O2 sat: Oxygen saturation; PAC: Pulmonary artery catheter; Telem: Telemetry.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Volume resuscitation end-points[6]. BP: Blood pressure; CO: Cardiac output; CVP: Central venous pressure; CVP rise: Sustained rise in central venous pressure; HR: Heart rate; MvO2: Mixed venous oxygen saturation; Per Perf: Peripheral perfusion; ScvO2: Central venous oxygen saturation; UO: Urine output.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. GAUER OH, HENRY JP, SIEKER HO. Changes in central venous pressure after moderate hemorrhage and transfusion in man. Circ Res. 1956;4:79–84. - PubMed
    1. Zochios V, Ansari B, Jones N. Is central venous pressure a reliable indicator of fluid responsiveness in the critically ill? Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 2014;75:598. - PubMed
    1. Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest. 2008;134:172–178. - PubMed
    1. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R. Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? An updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:1774–1781. - PubMed
    1. Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, Beale R, Bakker J, Hofer C, Jaeschke R, Mebazaa A, Pinsky MR, Teboul JL, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1795–1815. - PMC - PubMed