ArticleGland surgery2020
The efficacy and safety of controlled low central venous pressure for liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Gland surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07440121 (The Effect of Different Fluid Therapy on Major Postoperative Morbidity in Patients Undergoing Non-donor Hepatectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
The Effect of Different Fluid Therapy on Major Postoperative Morbidity in Patients Undergoing Non-donor Hepatectomy: a Pilot Trial
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Controlled low central venous pressure after cardiopulmonary bypass reduces acute kidney injury following cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Trial
- Nitroglycerin versus milrinone for low central venous pressure in patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Trial
- Effects of targeted mild hypercapnia versus normocapnia on cerebral oxygen saturation in patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy under low central venous pressure: a prospective, randomized controlled study.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Trial
- Balancing safety and outcomes in minimally invasive liver resection: insights from the PRESSURE trial.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
- Effects of controlled low central venous pressure on organ function during hepatectomy: Current progress.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Review
- Article
- Correlation of Cerebral Oxygen Saturation Change with Perioperative Complications in Elderly Patients Who Underwent Laparoscopic Partial Hepatectomy.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Article
- Intraoperative cerebral desaturation during low-central-venous-pressure hepatectomy with intermittent Pringle maneuver: a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Predicting risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure in patients undergoing liver resection with controlled low central venous pressure.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Prediction of postoperative complications after hepatectomy with dynamic monitoring of central venous oxygen saturation.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- The impacts of corrected left ventricular ejection time combined with dobutamine on hepatocellular carcinoma patients.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Successive perioperative management of laparoscopic liver resection in the reverse Trendelenburg position for a patient with Fontan physiology: a case report.JA clinical reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApplication of controlled low central venous pressure (LCVP) in liver resection growing in popularity, but its efficacy and safety are still controversial. Our objectives were to assess and compare the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of controlled LCVP in patients undergoing liver resection.
methodsThe PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for all the relevant studies regardless of study design. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies and excluded studies of poor quality. Moreover, we applied a systematic review and meta-analysis by using RevMan 5.3 software to compare the efficacy and safety of LCVP
resultsIn total, 10 studies, involving 324 patients undergoing liver resection with controlled LCVP, were identified. Meta-analysis displayed that blood loss in the LCVP group was dramatically less than that in the control group (standard CVP group, mean difference (MD): -581.68; 95% CI: -886.32 to -277.05; P=0.0002). Moreover, blood transfusion in the LCVP group was also markedly less than that in the control group (MD: -179.16; 95% CI: -282.00 to -76.33; P=0.0006). However, there was no difference between LCVP group and control group in operation time (MD: -16.24; 95% CI: -39.56 to 7.09; P=0.17), fluid infusion (MD: -287.89; 95% CI: -1,054.47 to 478.69; P=0.46), urinary volume (MD: -26.88; 95% CI: -87.14 to 33.37; P=0.38), ALT (MD: -58.66; 95% CI: -153.81 to 36.50; P=0.23), TBIL (MD: -0.32; 95% CI: -3.93 to 3.28; P=0.86), BUN (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.73 to 0.47; P=0.67), CR (MD: 1.87; 95% CI: -4.90 to 8.63; P=0.59), postoperative complication rates (MD: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.90; P=0.01) and hospital stay (MD: -0.61; 95% CI: -1.68 to 0.46; P=0.26).
conclusionsCompared with the control, controlled LCVP showed comparable efficacy and safety for the treatment during liver resection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.