Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares.

By P. Marik, M. Baram, B. Vahid. Chest, 2008

1,409 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Epidemiology, Surgery

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3a9fed03a7c6bd72bd28a675c23b87032a41d6e8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

1. R. Cavallazzi
2. R. Bellomo
3. M. Flemmer
4. John A. Kellum
5. P. Marik
6. A. Hirani
7. T. Vasu

In Epidemiology

1. P. Marik
2. R. Bellomo
3. R. Cavallazzi
4. John A. Kellum
5. M. Flemmer
6. A. Hirani
7. T. Vasu

In Surgery

1. P. Marik
2. R. Cavallazzi
3. R. Bellomo
4. John A. Kellum
5. A. Hirani
6. T. Vasu

Citations in the corpus

• Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: A systematic review of the literature* (2009, background): “In contrast, analysis of the literature indicated that, in critically ill patients, only about 50% of patients respond to volume expansion (1).”
• Narrative Review (2012, background): “While widely considered a reliable sign of volume overload(8,17), the JVP is a ‘‘measure’’ of right atrial pressure and provides no useful clinical information about LV function or intravascular volume status.(18,19) An elevated JVP has a very low sensitivity for the diagnosis of HF (0.”
• Hepatorenal syndrome: the 8th international consensus conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group (2012, methodology): “Traditional methods based on clinical examination and static measurements of right atrial and pulmonary artery pressures are of questionable accuracy in predicting volume responsiveness and should be used with caution [49-53].”
• Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: A positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality* (2011, background): “Thus, it seems that after the initial 12 hrs in septic shock, central venous pressure is not only unable to predict fluid responsiveness (an increase in cardiac output following fluid challenge) (14, 15), but is an unreliable marker of fluid balance.”
• Does the Central Venous Pressure Predict Fluid Responsiveness? An Updated Meta-Analysis and a Plea for Some Common Sense* (2013, methodology): “In 2008, we published a meta-analysis evaluating the ability of the CVP to guide fluid therapy (15).”
• Early lactate-guided therapy in intensive care unit patients: a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. (2010, methodology): “For instance, given the debate on the best method to assess fluid responsiveness and adequate endpoints of fluid resuscitation (50, 51), we have chosen a dynamic approach using central venous pressure (27), as it was practically most suitable in a multicenter environment within the earliest hours of”