ReviewWorld journal of critical care medicine2026
Venous dimension of shock: Integrating arterial inflow and venous back-pressure in hemodynamic assessment.
Review in World journal of critical care medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Critical care hemodynamics has long been centered on arterial pressure, cardiac output, and systemic vascular resistance. While these variables remain fundamental, organ perfusion is determined not only by arterial inflow but also by the pressure opposing venous outflow at the microcirculatory level. Emerging clinical and physiological evidence indicates that elevated venous pressure may contribute to organ dysfunction even when arterial pressure appears adequate. Effective organ perfusion reflects the balance between arterial driving pressure and venous outflow pressure, further modified by microcirculatory factors such as capillary density, flow heterogeneity, and cellular oxygen utilization, which are usually inferred at the bedside rather than directly measured. Consequently, abnormal tissue perfusion may arise from reduced arterial inflow, elevated venous pressure, microcirculatory dysfunction, or a combination of these mechanisms. In this narrative review, we present the arterial-venous perfusion gradient as a pragmatic clinical synthesis that reintegrates established venous physiology into bedside hemodynamic interpretation. The review examines the physiological determinants of venous return, the consequences of venous congestion for organ function, and the clinical conditions in which elevated venous pressure contributes to organ injury. Particular attention is given to the effects of venous congestion on renal, hepatic, splanchnic, cerebral, and right-heart function, alongside bedside tools for evaluating venous hemodynamics, including point-of-care ultrasound, venous Doppler assessment, and ultrasound-based congestion scoring. We also propose a phenotype-based bedside approach for integrating arterial pressure, forward flow, venous congestion, and tissue perfusion during shock assessment and management. Recognizing discordant hemodynamic states may help clinicians identify patients whose organ dysfunction stems from elevated venous back-pressure or persistent microcirculatory impairment, rather than from impaired arterial inflow alone.
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.