ArticleThe ultrasound journal2025
Relationship between point-of-care ultrasound venous congestion assessment parameters, intravenous pressure, and venous return: a post-hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Guyton-based hypothesis for venous congestion.The ultrasound journal · 2026Article
- A comprehensive review of venous excess ultrasound (VExUS) score: evidence from original research.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Decoding portal vein pulsatility: hemodynamic determinants in a post-hoc analysis of a prospective observational trial.Annals of intensive care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA recent study suggested that point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) venous congestion assessment poorly describes the changes in venous return during a fluid challenge. The aim of the present study was to explore the relationship between POCUS venous congestion assessment parameters and the determinants of venous return in steady state and during a fluid challenge.
methodsThis study is a post-hoc analysis of a single-centre prospective cohort study of patients presenting acute circulatory failure and venous congestion. The protocol consisted in a fluid administration of 4mL/kg over five minutes, just preceded and followed by the acquisition of haemodynamic data and POCUS venous congestion assessment parameters (VExUS score and portal pulsatility index, PPi). Venous return (dVR) was defined as the difference between mean systemic filling pressure analogue estimated by the mathematical approach of Parkin and Leaning (Pmsa) and central venous pressure (CVP). Relationships between Pmsa, CVP, dVR, and VExUS score and PPi were analysed using linear regression and Jonckheere-Terpstra test for trend.
resultsThirty-two patients were included in the analysis. Fluid challenge induced a significant increase in CVP, Pmsa, dVR, and VExUS score. In steady state, there was a significant association of VExUS score and PPi with CVP (P-value = 0.006 and 0.002, respectively) and Pmsa (P-value = 0.004 and 0.003, respectively) but not with dVR (P-value = 0.943 and 0.408, respectively). The variations induced by fluid challenge in CVP, Pmsa and dVR were not associated with variations in PPi (P-value = 0.844, 0.912 and 0.716, respectively). Patients without VExUS score increase during the fluid challenge presented a higher increase in Pmsa than patients with an increase in VExUS score.
conclusionIn steady state, POCUS venous congestion assessment parameters are associated with CVP and Pmsa but not with dVR. After fluid administration, changes in POCUS venous congestion assessment parameters were not associated with changes in CVP, Pmsa, and dVR.
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.