Cited by 866Hemodynamic Monitoring and TherapySepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentHeart Failure Treatment and Management

Does the Central Venous Pressure Predict Fluid Responsiveness? An Updated Meta-Analysis and a Plea for Some Common Sense

Marik, Paul E., Cavallazzi, Rodrigo·2013·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite a previous meta-analysis that concluded that central venous pressure should not be used to make clinical decisions regarding fluid management, central venous pressure continues to be recommended for this purpose. AIM: To perform an updated meta-analysis incorporating recent studies that investigated indices predictive of fluid responsiveness. A priori subgroup analysis was planned according to the location where the study was performed (ICU or operating room). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and citation review of relevant primary and review articles. STUDY SELECTION: Clinical trials that reported the correlation coefficient or area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) between the central venous pressure and change in cardiac performance following an intervention that altered cardiac preload. From 191 articles screened, 43 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included for data extraction. The studies included human adult subjects, and included healthy controls (n = 1) and ICU (n = 22) and operating room (n = 20) patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted on study characteristics, patient population, baseline central venous pressure, the correlation coefficient, and/or the AUC between central venous pressure and change in stroke volume index/cardiac index and the percentage of fluid responders. Meta-analytic techniques were used to summarize the data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall 57% ± 13% of patients were fluid responders. The summary AUC was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.54-0.58) with no heterogenicity between studies. The summary AUC was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.52-0.60) for those studies done in the ICU and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.54-0.58) for those done in the operating room. The summary correlation coefficient between the baseline central venous pressure and change in stroke volume index/cardiac index was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.1-0.25), being 0.28 (95% CI, 0.16-0.40) in the ICU patients, and 0.11 (95% CI, 0.02-0.21) in the operating room patients. CONCLUSIONS: There are no data to support the widespread practice of using central venous pressure to guide fluid therapy. This approach to fluid resuscitation should be abandoned.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ccm.0b013e31828a25fd

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Central venous pressure remains a vital part of the hemodynamic monitoring post-cardiopulmonary bypass, despite its limited utility in assessing fluid responsiveness.

    “Central venous pressure (CVP), measured at the junction of the superior vena cava and right atrium, remains a vital part of the hemodynamic monitoring post-cardiopulmonary bypass, despite its limited utility in assessing fluid responsiveness [15,16].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marik, P. E., & Cavallazzi, R.
Affiliations
  • Eastern Virginia Medical School (US)
  • University of Louisville (US)
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2013-07
Volume
41
Issue
7
Pages
1774-1781
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2106542431
Cited by
866
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 79 · 2017: 79 · 2016: 80 · 2015: 91 · 2014: 74 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 2
FWCI
15.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
Keywords
central venous pressure, fluid responsiveness, fluid resuscitation, hemodynamic monitoring, stroke volume index, cardiac index, intensive care unit patients, operating room patients, prediction accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic, cardiac preload, evidence-based medicine, meta-analysis critique, subgroup analysis, correlation coefficient, critical care nursing, perioperative nursing
MeSH terms
Central Venous Pressure, Fluid Therapy, Hemodynamics, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Respiration, Artificial

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review