VExUS versus CVP for assessing venous congestion: oasis or mirage?

Xiang Si, Daiyin Cao, Christopher Lai, Sheldon Magder, Xavier Monnet

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Xiang SiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangdong Clinical Research Centre for Critical Care Medicine, Guangzhou, China. sixiang@mail.sysu.edu.cn.

Daiyin CaoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Biomedical Innovation Center, Guangzhou, China. caody3@mail.sysu.edu.cn.

Christopher LaiAP-HP, Service de Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Hôpital de Bicêtre, DMU 4 CORREVE, Inserm UMR S_999, IHU SEPSIS, CARMAS, Université Paris-Saclay, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.

Sheldon MagderDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.

Xavier MonnetAP-HP, Service de Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Hôpital de Bicêtre, DMU 4 CORREVE, Inserm UMR S_999, IHU SEPSIS, CARMAS, Université Paris-Saclay, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.

Funding

Guangdong Provincial Natural Science Foundation No. 2025A1515012582Wu Jieping Medical Foundation 320.6750.2024-2-23

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Both venous excess ultrasound (VExUS) and central venous pressure (CVP) can assess venous congestion from different perspectives. CVP provides continuous and simple monitoring of the risk of congestion and is easily repeatable in patients with a central venous catheter. In contrast, VExUS offers an intermittent, organ-level evaluation of established congestion and may help identify the venous waterfall phenomenon. Furthermore, assessment of pulmonary congestion should not be overlooked.

Indexed as

Central Venous PressureHyperemiaHumansUltrasonographyEchocardiographyFluidFluid responsivenessShockVascular waterfallVena cavaVenous return

Identifiers

PMID42098778

DOI10.1186/s13054-026-06016-7

PMCPMC13154463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.