ReviewJournal of echocardiography2022
IVC measurement for the noninvasive evaluation of central venous pressure.
Review in Journal of echocardiography, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-Enabled Wearable Ultrasound for Noninvasive Central Venous Pressure Monitoring.Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Heart at Hand: The Role of Point-of-Care Cardiac Ultrasound in Internal Medicine.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Echocardiographic measurement of inferior vena cava diameter for estimating central venous pressure in adult Fontan patients.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Article
- Influence of Increased Intra-Abdominal Pressure on the Validity of Ultrasound-Derived Inferior Vena Cava Measurements for Estimating Central Venous Pressure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Heart in Focus: Advancing Pericardial Effusion Diagnosis With Point-of-Care Ultrasound.Cureus · 2024Review
- Hepatic vein Doppler ultrasound to estimate central venous pressure in mechanically ventilated children.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- Review
- Ultrasonographic Applications of Novel Technologies and Artificial Intelligence in Critically Ill Patients.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Is caval index a sufficient parameter for determining and monitoring dehydration in intoxication patients?Irish journal of medical science · 2024Article
- Closed thoracic drainage in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease complicated with spontaneous pneumothorax: A retrospective study.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- Non-Invasive Estimation of Right Atrial Pressure Using a Semi-Automated Echocardiographic Tool for Inferior Vena Cava Edge-Tracking.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Central venous pressure (CVP) is one of only a handful of variables that can be used to assess a patient's volume status to attempt to optimize stroke volume. The gold standard method for assessing CVP is though pulmonary artery catheterization, which is invasive and risks severe complications such as pneumothorax and cardiac conduction abnormalities. Current noninvasive methods for estimating CVP such as jugular venous pressure assessment are imperfect with wide inter-examiner variability. The inferior vena cava (IVC) is a highly compliant vessel that uniquely does not constrict in response to hypovolemia, making it an ideal, noninvasive surrogate for the estimation of CVP. A range of IVC indices including minimum and maximum IVC diameter and fraction of IVC collapse with inspiration (known as collapsibility index) have been studied with highly variable results that range from excellent to poor correlation between these values and CVP. Despite this inconsistency in findings, multiple schemes have been proposed to attempt to estimate CVP from IVC measurements, but when prospectively tested, none has been shown to be accurate. Since the most recent 2015 American Society of Echocardiography guidelines, multiple studies have identified unique ways of improving the accuracy of IVC measurement, which could translate into better CVP estimation. The goal of this review is to summarize the many, often conflicting studies that exist in this area, and provide recommendations for future studies based on our findings.
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.