ArticleEchocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.)2026
Inferior Vena Cava Ultrasound Does Not Reliably Estimate Systemic Venous Pressure in Adults With a Fontan Circulation.
Article in Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCurrent ASE/EACVI echocardiography guidelines recommend estimating central venous pressure from inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter and collapsibility in biventricular circulations. Because altered blood volume, venous capacitance, and venous tone may weaken the relationship between IVC morphology and systemic venous pressure, it is uncertain whether these criteria apply in the Fontan circulation.
methodsIn 101 adults with a Fontan circulation (median age 27.8 years), echocardiographic IVC and resting peripheral venous pressure (PVP) were measured simultaneously. ASE/EACVI guidelines were applied directly, estimating central venous pressure based on IVC diameter > 21 mm and collapsibility < 50%. Agreement with measured PVP categories was assessed using weighted κ. As a secondary post hoc analysis, IVC diameter and collapsibility thresholds were optimized within the same cohort to assess whether simple recalibration could materially improve agreement.
resultsMedian resting PVP was 10.6 (8.6-13.1) mmHg, and 21% had PVP ≥ 15 mmHg. IVC collapsibility was < 50% in 99%, whereas only 17% had IVC diameter > 21 mm. IVC diameter (r = 0.14, p = 0.163) and IVC collapsibility (r = -0.06, p = 0.527) did not correlate with PVP. Conventional criteria assigned no patient to the low pressure category and showed poor agreement with measured PVP (weighted κ 0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.12 to 0.16). Post hoc within-cohort recalibration (using IVC diameter ≥ 20 mm and collapsibility ≤ 10% as cut-offs) only modestly improved agreement (weighted κ 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.42).
conclusionIVC-based pressure estimation is unreliable in adults with a Fontan circulation. Validated peripheral or invasive pressure measurements should be preferred for accurate Fontan pressure assessment.
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.