Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42157570›Full record

ReviewAnaesthesia2026

Energy, flow and pressure in the cardiovascular system: a narrative review of how the circulation works.

Ashley Miller, Justin Kirk-Bayley, Marcus Peck, Jonathan Wilkinson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Anaesthesia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Ashley MillerDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, Shrewsbury, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6665-1514
Justin Kirk-BayleyDepartment of Anaesthesia, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9493-045X
Marcus PeckDepartment of Anaesthesia, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hampshire, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7312-8887
Jonathan WilkinsonDepartment of Anaesthesia, Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust, Northampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6175-4576

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUnderstanding what determines blood flow in the circulation is central to haemodynamic management in anaesthesia and critical care. Traditional teaching emphasises pressure-based concepts, such as preload; afterload; central venous pressure; and venous return curves. However, these frameworks generate confusion about causality and control. Interpreting pressure variables as drivers of flow has contributed to inconsistent physiological reasoning and potentially harmful treatment. This narrative review re-examines how blood flow is generated and regulated, integrating classical physiology with contemporary mechanisms and provides a coherent clinical framework.

methodsWe performed a search of MEDLINE and Embase with key terms, supplemented by citation tracking. We also included seminal physiological studies.

resultsThe reviewed literature showed that blood flow is constrained by energy supply from the heart and pressure established by vascular volume, elastance and the impedance of the inflow pathway to the heart. Mean systemic pressure reflects potential energy stored within the compliant venous system but does not drive flow. Right atrial pressure and preload are dependent variables that report the equilibrium between venous return and cardiac function, but do not control flow. Starling's mechanism provides passive mechanical matching of inflow to outflow but does not regulate cardiac output actively. Resistance-based interpretations alone fail to account for the influence of compliance, impedance and pulsatility. Misinterpretation of graphical and algebraic representations, particularly venous return curves, has obscured these relationships. DISCUSSION: We describe a unified physiological framework in which the heart supplies energy, vascular properties define what flow is possible, and pressures reflect system state rather than driving forces. This model reconciles historically opposing paradigms and clarifies the limits of pressure-targeted resuscitation. Clinically, it promotes assessing flow responsiveness and cardiac reserve over static pressure targets, and provides a mechanistic basis for contemporary shock management, thus avoiding interventions that increase congestion without improving perfusion.

Indexed as

Blood CirculationBlood PressureCardiovascular Physiological PhenomenaHemodynamicsCardiac OutputHumanscardiac outputinlet impedancemean systemic pressureshockvenous return

Identifiers

PMID42157570
PMCPMC13551225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.