Advertisement

Evaluation of mean systemic filling pressure from pulse contour cardiac output and central venous pressure

  • Jacinta J. Maas
  • Bart F. Geerts
  • Jos R. C. Jansen
Article

Abstract

Objective

The volemic status of a patient can be determined by measuring mean systemic filling pressure (Pmsf). Pmsf is obtained from the venous return curve, i.e. the relationship between central venous pressure (Pcv) and blood flow. We evaluated the feasibility and precision of Pmsf measurement.

Methods

In ten piglets we constructed venous return curves using seven 12 s inspiratory holds transiently increasing Pcv to seven different steady state levels and monitored the resultant blood flow, by pulse contour (COpc) and by flow probes around the pulmonary artery (COr) and aorta (COl). Pmsf is obtained by extrapolation of the venous return curve to zero flow. Measurements were repeated to evaluate the precision of Pmsf.

Results

During the inspiratory holds, 133 paired data points were obtained for COr, COl, COpc and Pcv. Bland–Altman analysis showed no difference between COr and COl, but a small significant difference was present between COl and COpc. All Pcv versus flow (COl or COpc) relationships were linear. Mean Pmsf was 10.78 with COl and 10.37 mmHg with COpc. Bland–Altman analysis for Pmsf with COl and with COpc, showed a bias of 0.40 ± 0.48 mmHg. The averaged coefficient of variation for repeated measurement of Pmsf with COl was 6.2% and with COpc 6.1%.

Conclusions

During an inspiratory hold pulmonary flow and aortic flow equilibrate. Cardiac output estimates by arterial pulse contour and by a flow probe around the aorta are interchangeable. Therefore, the venous return curve and Pmsf can be estimated accurately by pulse contour methods.

Keywords

venous return mean systemic filling pressure cardiac output pulse contour 

References

  1. 1.
    Gelman S. Venous function and central venous pressure: a physiologic story. Anesthesiology. 2008;108:735–748.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest. 2008;134:172–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Versprille A, Jansen JR. Mean systemic filling pressure as a characteristic pressure for venous return. Pflugers Arch. 1985;405:226–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Magder S. Clinical usefulness of respiratory variations in arterial pressure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;169:151–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michard F, Teboul JL. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121:2000–2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berkenstadt H, Margalit N, Hadani M, et al. Stroke volume variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing brain surgery. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:984–989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Magder S, Lagonidis D, Erice F. The use of respiratory variations in right atrial pressure to predict the cardiac output response to PEEP. J Crit Care. 2001;16:108–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reuter DA, Felbinger TW, Kilger E, et al. Optimizing fluid therapy in mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery by on-line monitoring of left ventricular stroke volume variations. Comparison with aortic systolic pressure variations. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88:124–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chappell D, Jacob M, Hofmann-Kiefer K, et al. A rational approach to perioperative fluid management. Anesthesiology. 2008;109:723–740.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guyton AC, Lindsey AW, Abernathy B, Richardson T. Venous return at various right atrial pressures and the normal venous return curve. Am J Physiol. 1957;189:609–615.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guyton AC. Determination of cardiac output by equating venous return curves with cardiac response curves. Physiol Rev. 1955;35:123–129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maas JJ, Geerts BF, van den Berg PC, et al. Assessment of venous return curve and mean systemic filling pressure in postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:912–918.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Den Hartog EA, Versprille A, Jansen JR. Systemic filling pressure in intact circulation determined on basis of aortic versus central venous pressure relationships. Am J Physiol. 1994;267:H2255–H2258.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geerts BF, Maas JJ, Aarts LP, et al. Partitioning the resistances along the vascular tree: effects of dobutamine and hypovolemia in piglets with an intact circulation. J Clin Monit Comput. 2010;24:377–384.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hiesmayr M, Jansen JR, Versprille A. Effects of endotoxin infusion on mean systemic filling pressure and flow resistance to venous return. Pflugers Arch. 1996;431:741–747.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jansen JR, Schreuder JJ, Bogaard JM, et al. Thermodilution technique for measurement of cardiac output during artificial ventilation. J Appl Physiol. 1981;51:584–591.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jansen JR, Schreuder JJ, Settels JJ, et al. An adequate strategy for the thermodilution technique in patients during mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 1990;16:422–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jansen JR, Schreuder JJ, Punt KD, et al. Mean cardiac output by thermodilution with a single controlled injection. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:1868–1873.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jansen JR, Maas JJ, Pinsky MR. Bedside assessment of mean systemic filling pressure. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2010;16:231–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jellinek H, Krenn H, Oczenski W, et al. Influence of positive airway pressure on the pressure gradient for venous return in humans. J Appl Physiol. 2000;88:926–932.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schipke JD, Heusch G, Sanii AP, et al. Static filling pressure in patients during induced ventricular fibrillation. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2003;285:H2510–H2515.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jansen JR. Standard pulse contour methods are not applicable in animals. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32:2084–2085.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Langewouters GJ, Wesseling KH, Goedhard WJ. The static elastic properties of 45 human thoracic and 20 abdominal aortas in vitro and the parameters of a new model. J Biomech. 1984;17:425–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Samar RE, Coleman TG. Mean circulatory pressure and vascular compliances in the spontaneously hypertensive rat. Am J Physiol. 1979;237:H584–H589.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Honda T, Fuqua JM, Edmonds CH, et al. Applications of total artificial heart for studies of circulatory physiology; measurement of resistance to venous return in postoperative awake calves. Preliminary report. Ann Biomed Eng. 1976;4:271–279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pinsky MR. Instantaneous venous return curves in an intact canine preparation. J Appl Physiol. 1984;56:765–771.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guyton AC, Polizo D, Armstrong GG. Mean circulatory filling pressure measured immediately after cessation of heart pumping. Am J Physiol. 1954;179:261–267.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacinta J. Maas
    • 1
  • Bart F. Geerts
    • 2
  • Jos R. C. Jansen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Intensive Care, H4QLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiologyLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations