Background A simple measurement of central venous pressure(CVP)-mean by the digital monitor display has become increasingly popular.However,the agreement between CVP-mean and CVP-end(a standard method of CVP measureme...Background A simple measurement of central venous pressure(CVP)-mean by the digital monitor display has become increasingly popular.However,the agreement between CVP-mean and CVP-end(a standard method of CVP measurement by analyzing the waveform at end-expiration)is not well determined.This study was designed to identify the relationship between CVP-mean and CVP-end in critically ill patients and to introduce a new parameter of CVP amplitude(ΔCVP=CVPmax-CVPmin)during the respiratory period to identify the agreement/disagreement between CVP-mean and CVP-end.Methods In total,291 patients were included in the study.CVP-mean and CVP-end were obtained simultaneously from each patient.CVP measurement difference(|CVP-mean-CVP-end|)was defined as the difference between CVP-mean and CVP-end.TheΔCVP was calculated as the difference between the peak(CVPmax)and the nadir value(CVPmin)during the respiratory cycle,which was automatically recorded on the monitor screen.Subjects with|CVP-mean-CVP-end|≥2 mm Hg were divided into the inconsistent group,while subjects with|CVP-mean-CVP-end|2 mm Hg were divided into the consistent group.ResultsΔCVP was significantly higher in the inconsistent group[7.17(2.77)vs.5.24(2.18),P0.001]than that in the consistent group.There was a significantly positive relationship betweenΔCVP and|CVP-mean-CVP-end|(r=0.283,P 0.0001).Bland-Altman plot showed the bias was-0.61 mm Hg with a wide 95%limit of agreement(-3.34,2.10)of CVP-end and CVP-mean.The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves(AUC)ofΔCVP for predicting|CVP-mean-CVP-end|≥2 mm Hg was 0.709.With a high diagnostic specificity,usingΔCVP3 to detect|CVP-mean-CVP-end|lower than 2mm Hg(consistent measurement)resulted in a sensitivity of 22.37%and a specificity of 93.06%.UsingΔCVP8 to detect|CVP-mean-CVPend|8 mm Hg(inconsistent measurement)resulted in a sensitivity of 31.94%and a specificity of 91.32%.Conclusions CVP-end and CVP-mean have statistical discrepancies in specific clinical scenarios.ΔCVP during the respiratory period is related to the variation of the two CVP methods.A highΔCVP indicates a poor agreement between these two methods,whereas a lowΔCVP indicates a good agreement between these two methods.展开更多
基金Supported by the National High-Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding(2022-PUMCH-B-115,2022-PUMCH-D-005).
文摘Background A simple measurement of central venous pressure(CVP)-mean by the digital monitor display has become increasingly popular.However,the agreement between CVP-mean and CVP-end(a standard method of CVP measurement by analyzing the waveform at end-expiration)is not well determined.This study was designed to identify the relationship between CVP-mean and CVP-end in critically ill patients and to introduce a new parameter of CVP amplitude(ΔCVP=CVPmax-CVPmin)during the respiratory period to identify the agreement/disagreement between CVP-mean and CVP-end.Methods In total,291 patients were included in the study.CVP-mean and CVP-end were obtained simultaneously from each patient.CVP measurement difference(|CVP-mean-CVP-end|)was defined as the difference between CVP-mean and CVP-end.TheΔCVP was calculated as the difference between the peak(CVPmax)and the nadir value(CVPmin)during the respiratory cycle,which was automatically recorded on the monitor screen.Subjects with|CVP-mean-CVP-end|≥2 mm Hg were divided into the inconsistent group,while subjects with|CVP-mean-CVP-end|2 mm Hg were divided into the consistent group.ResultsΔCVP was significantly higher in the inconsistent group[7.17(2.77)vs.5.24(2.18),P0.001]than that in the consistent group.There was a significantly positive relationship betweenΔCVP and|CVP-mean-CVP-end|(r=0.283,P 0.0001).Bland-Altman plot showed the bias was-0.61 mm Hg with a wide 95%limit of agreement(-3.34,2.10)of CVP-end and CVP-mean.The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves(AUC)ofΔCVP for predicting|CVP-mean-CVP-end|≥2 mm Hg was 0.709.With a high diagnostic specificity,usingΔCVP3 to detect|CVP-mean-CVP-end|lower than 2mm Hg(consistent measurement)resulted in a sensitivity of 22.37%and a specificity of 93.06%.UsingΔCVP8 to detect|CVP-mean-CVPend|8 mm Hg(inconsistent measurement)resulted in a sensitivity of 31.94%and a specificity of 91.32%.Conclusions CVP-end and CVP-mean have statistical discrepancies in specific clinical scenarios.ΔCVP during the respiratory period is related to the variation of the two CVP methods.A highΔCVP indicates a poor agreement between these two methods,whereas a lowΔCVP indicates a good agreement between these two methods.
