ReviewClinical physiology and functional imaging2026
Cardiovascular reserve as an integrative physiological construct: Current evidence, emerging technologies and future directions.
Review in Clinical physiology and functional imaging, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiovascular reserve represents the integrated physiological capacity of the cardiovascular system to maintain tissue perfusion during increasing physiological stress. Although reserve has long been recognized conceptually, its direct assessment remains challenging. No universally accepted definition or gold-standard measure of cardiovascular reserve currently exists. Nevertheless, if cardiovascular reserve can be estimated reliably, reserve-based monitoring could permit earlier recognition of impending circulatory deterioration before conventional physiological indicators become abnormal. Among the reserve-monitoring technologies currently under investigation, the Compensatory Reserve Metric (CRM) and the Cardiovascular Reserve Index (CVRI) represent two distinct approaches to estimating remaining cardiovascular reserve. This review examines the physiological basis of reserve-based monitoring, critically evaluates the available experimental and clinical evidence supporting CRM and CVRI, assesses their strengths and limitations and outlines priorities for future research and potential clinical applications. CRM has demonstrated strong performance in experimental haemorrhage models and remains the most extensively studied reserve-monitoring technology in low output conditions. Although evidence supporting CVRI is more limited, findings from cardiopulmonary exercise testing, haemorrhage and heat stress suggest that it may reflect progressive depletion of cardiovascular reserve across diverse forms of circulatory and physiological stress. Although seemingly promising, current evidence remains limited by small clinical cohorts, heterogeneous study designs and limited independent validation.
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.