ReviewAnnals of intensive care2025
Ultrasound indicators of organ venous congestion: a narrative review.
Review in Annals of intensive care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated haemodynamic monitoring of fluid responsiveness and fluid tolerance in critical care: from physiology to bedside applications.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Review
- Cardiometabolic Aging Driven by Multi-Organ Crosstalk: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Effects of Endovenous Radiofrequency Ablation on Right Ventricular Functions and Pulmonary Hemodynamics in Superficial Venous Insufficiency.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Assessment of Congestion in Heart Failure Using VExUS: Current Evidence, Limitations and Clinical Perspectives.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Association between venous excess ultrasound score and major adverse kidney events at 30 days in critically ill elderly patients: a multicenter prospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute kidney injury and other organ dysfunction in the setting of heart failure are primarily determined by a low cardiac output status and venous congestion, which is a sequence of increases in heart filling pressures. Early point-of-care ultrasound assessment of the inferior vena cava, lung ultrasound for pulmonary congestion, and focused echocardiography have become increasingly used in the bedside evaluation of congestive heart failure and assessment of the left ventricle. The congestion disrupts venous outflow in abdominal organs, most notably the kidneys and liver, and can be noninvasively evaluated with Doppler ultrasound, known as the venous excess. Such flow abnormalities have been repeatedly linked to congestive organ dysfunction and poorer clinical outcomes. In this review, we outline a thorough, bedside approach to assessing venous congestion using Doppler imaging. Venous Excess Ultrasound (VExUS) is an emerging protocol that offers a point-of-care ultrasonic method for grading systemic congestion and tailoring diuretic management. The purpose of this review is to evaluate VExUS's potential applications and critically appraise current evidence on its effectiveness in directing decongestive therapy for patients with acute decompensated heart failure. In conclusion, multiple Doppler venous congestion assessment emerges as a promising, noninvasive tool for the instantaneous assessment of organ congestion in cardiorenal syndrome, helping in the management of fluid and diuretic administration. Its accuracy, however, depends on the sonographer's proficiency. Larger-scale studies are needed to confirm their applicability in clinical practice.
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.