ReviewAnaesthesia2026
Energy, flow and pressure in the cardiovascular system: a narrative review of how the circulation works.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a comprehensive haemodynamic ultrasound assessment for critical care: Rationale and methodology from the FUSIC programme.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2026Article
- Understanding the Nuanced Concept of Hemodynamic Incoherence and Its Underlying Physiology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.