Minireviews Open Access
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2018. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Transplant. Jun 28, 2018; 8(3): 61-67
Published online Jun 28, 2018. doi: 10.5500/wjt.v8.i3.61
Utility of central venous pressure measurement in renal transplantation: Is it evidence based?
Ahmed Aref, Tariq Zayan, Department of Nephrology, Sur hospital, Sur 411, Sultanate of Oman
Ahmed Aref, Tariq Zayan, Ajay Sharma, Ahmed Halawa, Faculty of Health and Science, Institute of Learning and Teaching, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GB, United Kingdom
Ajay Sharma, Department of Transplantation Surgery, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool L7 8XP, United Kingdom
Ahmed Halawa, Department of Transplantation Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield S5 7AU, United Kingdom
ORCID number: Ahmed Aref (0000-0003-4184-3883); Tariq Zayan (0000-0001-9140-0795); Ajay Sharma (0000-0003-4050-6586); Ahmed Halawa (0000-0002-7305-446X).
Author contributions: Aref A contributes by designing the work, data collection, and writing the manuscript; Zayan T contributes to data collection and organisation of scientific material; Sharma A reviewed and edited the manuscript; Halawa A contributes by choosing the topic of our work, providing expert opinion for writing our work and final editing of the manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: There is no conflict of interest associated with any of the senior author or other co-authors contributed their efforts in this manuscript.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Ahmed Halawa, FRCS (Gen Surg), MD, MSc, Surgeon, Department of Transplantation Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Herries Road, Sheffield S5 7AU, United Kingdom. ahmed.halawa@sth.nhs.uk
Telephone: +44-77-87542128 Fax: +44-11-42714604
Received: December 30, 2017
Peer-review started: January 1, 2018
First decision: January 31, 2018
Revised: March 5, 2018
Accepted: April 1, 2018
Article in press: April 1, 2018
Published online: June 28, 2018
Processing time: 177 Days and 10.7 Hours

Abstract

Adequate intravenous fluid therapy is essential in renal transplant recipients to ensure a good allograft perfusion. Central venous pressure (CVP) has been considered the cornerstone to guide the fluid therapy for decades; it was the only available simple tool worldwide. However, the revolutionary advances in assessing the dynamic preload variables together with the availability of new equipment to precisely measure the effect of intravenous fluids on the cardiac output had created a question mark on the future role of CVP. Despite the critical role of fluid therapy in the field of transplantation. There are only a few clinical studies that compared the CVP guided fluid therapy with the other modern techniques and their relation to the outcome in renal transplantation. Our work sheds some light on the available published data in renal transplantation, together with data from other disciplines evaluating the utility of central venous pressure measurement. Although lager well-designed studies are still required to consolidate the role of new techniques in the field of renal transplantation, we can confidently declare that the new techniques have the advantages of providing more accurate haemodynamic assessment, which results in a better patient outcome.

Key Words: Fluid monitoring; Central venous pressure; Renal transplantation

Core tip: We suggest that central venous pressure (CVP) measurement should be abandoned in renal transplantation since it may be misleading. We recommend using intra-operative and post-operative cardiac output monitoring devices for guiding fluid therapy in renal transplant recipients. Although lager well-designed studies are still required to consolidate the role of new techniques in comparison to CVP monitoring in the field of renal transplantation. We Suggest that the new methods have the advantage of providing a more accurate haemodynamic assessment in renal transplant cases.



INTRODUCTION

Central venous pressure (CVP) measurement have been in use for more than half a century to assess intravascular fluid status of renal transplant recipients and, thereby, be used as a guide for intravenous fluid therapy in renal transplantation. With the current advances in the diagnostic tools, the value of CVP is a point of debate. Several studies proved that CVP measurements are neither correlated to cardiac output nor have a precise correlation with intravascular volume status, therefore it’s value in fluid management of renal transplant recipient is at the best speculative. On the other hand, the traditionalists continue to believe that CVP values are of sufficiently good enough as a benchmark in determining resuscitation goals for a given patient.

It is well recognised that optimum fluid resuscitation is essential to maximise the outcomes in critically ill patients. However, only a few studies have reliably endeavoured to assess the role of CVP in comparison to other modern techniques in the field of renal transplantation. We aim to answer this question in regards to clinical application of CVP and objectively review from the point of view of its benefits and inherent limitations.

HISTORICAL USE OF CVP

The clinical correlation between CVP and the intravascular fluid volume were established more than 50 years ago[1]. Theoretical basis of CVP is to measure the pressure in the superior vena cava (SVC) or right atrium pressure, which reflects the right ventricle preload[2]. Indeed, several textbooks have dogmatically stated that CVP provides a clinically relevant and reliable information in regards to circulatory and volume status of patients[3].

Marik et al[3] published a systematic review article that evaluated the relationship between CVP and the fluid status of the patients and concluded that CVP is an unreliable indicator of the fluid status and should not be used as a guide to fluid management. Furthermore, Marik et al[4] as per updated meta-analysis for evaluation of CVP reliability in clinical practice, reiterated abandoning the use of CVP as a guide in fluid management.

Cecconi et al[5] pointed that commonly used preload measurements such as CVP or end diastolic volume, when used in isolation, cannot be used reliably as a guide to fluid resuscitation. They rather recommend using more than one hemodynamic variable for patient evaluation and management. Nonetheless, the study validated the role of CVP in certain situations as severe congestive heart failure or hypovolemia, where the use of CVP is valuable in guiding fluid management[5].

CVP IN THE CURRENT PRACTICE

CVP measurement continues to be a pedestal in day to day clinical practice. A survey studying the resuscitation practices of Canadian physicians have shown that 89.2% of them would use CVP as a monitoring parameter in septic shock as shown in Figure 1[6]. Additionally, CVP-determined endpoints were considered the end-point of volume resuscitation in the early phases of septic shock by 78.7% of the Canadian clinicians as illustrated in Figure 2[6].

Figure 1
Figure 1 Monitoring parameters used by intensive care unit physicians[6]. BP: Intra-arterial blood pressure; CVP: Central venous pressure; CVP oxy: Continuous monitoring of central venous oxygen saturation; Foley: Foley catheter; O2 sat: Oxygen saturation; PAC: Pulmonary artery catheter; Telem: Telemetry.
Figure 2
Figure 2 Volume resuscitation end-points[6]. BP: Blood pressure; CO: Cardiac output; CVP: Central venous pressure; CVP rise: Sustained rise in central venous pressure; HR: Heart rate; MvO2: Mixed venous oxygen saturation; Per Perf: Peripheral perfusion; ScvO2: Central venous oxygen saturation; UO: Urine output.

Bignami et al[7] addressed the current clinical practice in hemodynamic monitoring after cardiac surgery in Italy. They analysed data collected from 71 centres using a 33-item questionnaire from. For monitoring intravascular volume status, CVP was used most frequently (26.7%), followed by arterial BP (19.7%) and echocardiography (5.6%)[7]. Sondergaard et al[8] reported that CVP, though not a direct measure of preload, can be used to assess volume status, heart performance and systemic vascular resistance.

DRAWBACKS AND LIMITATIONS OF CVP IN RELATION TO RENAL TRANSPLANTATION

Recent medical advances in understanding haemodynamic of the vascular system together with the availability of new technology have changed the scope of diagnostic approaches. We strongly feel that CVP is not the right tool in assessing the fluid balance and guide fluid therapy in renal transplantation. CVP reading is affected by several physical and anatomical factors as illustrated in Table 1[9].

Table 1 Factors affecting the measured central venous pressure reading[9].
Central venous blood volumeVenous return/cardiac output Total blood volume Regional vascular tone
Compliance of central compartmentVascular tone Right ventricular compliance: Myocardial disease Pericardial disease Tamponade
Tricuspid valve diseaseStenosis Regurgitation
Cardiac rhythmJunctional rhythm Atrial fibrillation Atrio-ventricular dissociation
Reference level of transducerPositioning of patient
Intrathoracic pressureRespiration Intermittent positive pressure ventilation Positive end-expiratory pressure Tension pneumothorax

During kidney transplant operation, the recipient is exposed to many intraoperative factors which may alter the CVP reading, hence, can be misleading in decision making. These factors can be summarised in the following points: (1) During the operation, the position of the patient is not always in flat supine position. The surgeon may be tilting the table in a different direction, commonly head down while elevating the left or the right side to improve the access to the iliac vessels. The effect of posture changes on CVP reading was documented since a long time[10]; (2) transplant surgery always entails the use of abdominal retractors. These retractors must have a pressure effect on the viscera and subsequently affect the venous return. Moreover, the tension created by the retractors will resist movement of the diaphragm and will eventually affect the intrathoracic pressure. These mechanical factors again will give a false CVP reading[11]; (3) there is positive pressure ventilation (PPV) during the transplant operation will affect the CVP reading as mentioned in Table 1[9]. There is no convincing evidence demonstrating to how much the CVP is affected by PPV; (4) the target intra-operative CVP remains elusive. While aggressive hydration ensures good allograft perfusion. On the other hand, overhydration carries the risk of pulmonary congestion, pulmonary oedema, and prolonged intubation especially in patients with pre-existing cardiac conditions[12]; (5) CKD patients on dialysis fluctuate between the volume overload state and the dry state during the post-dialysis period, which makes it difficult to declare which CVP reading should be considered as a normal reading. Additionally, the effect of ageing, long-standing hypertension and the use of various medications affecting the peripheral vascular resistance (alpha blockers, beta blockers and calcium channel blockers) would be further confounding parameters[9]; and (6) we should not forget that placement of central venous catheters and other devices may result in central vein stenosis. Central vein stenosis can jeopardise the future of arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft in the ipsilateral extremity when the renal graft fails, and the patient returns to dialysis[13-15].

POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES FOR FLUID STATUS MONITORING

The introduction of commercially available equipment for assessing dynamic preload variables [e.g., stroke volume variation (SVV)] considered a revolutionary advance in peri-operative fluid management. Srivastava et al[16] evaluated the use of intraoperative transesophageal Doppler (TED) to estimate the corrected flow time and variation in stroke volume values. TED was used to guide intraoperative fluid management in 110 living donor renal transplant recipients, and the outcome was compared with the historical records of 104 control recipients who received CVP guided fluid management over the previous year. They concluded that TED was associated with a similar rate of immediate graft function. Moreover, it was associated with a significantly less amount of intra-operative intravenous (IV) fluids, and reduced incidence of postoperative fluid overload[16].

Similarly, Kumar et al[17] studied the use of SVV (obtained from minimally invasive cardiac output monitor) to guide the perioperative fluid therapy in major abdominal surgery. The study documented a significantly lower amount of IV fluids used with the new technique, not only that but also there was a significantly shorter ICU stay, and a non-significant shorter hospital stay[17]. These non-invasive tools were used successfully as a part of enhanced recovery programs in kidney transplantation to improve patient outcomes and speed up patient’s recovery after surgery[18].

Furthermore, several other non-invasive techniques are utilised for cardiac output assessment and IV fluid guidance like lithium dilution technology (e.g., LiDCOplusTM machine) and arterial pulse wave analysis (e.g., FloTrac/VigileoTM)[19,20]. However, each one of these novel, non-invasive techniques has its own limitations. Clinicians should be aware of the underlying principles and limitations of each technique to choose the best modality for each clinical scenario individually[19,20]. Advantages and limitations of some of the currently available non-invasive approaches are summarised in Table 2[19,20].

Table 2 Advantages and limitations of some commercially available (minimally invasive) cardiac output monitoring[19,20].
ModalityExamplesAdvantagesLimitations
Pulse wave analysisLiDCOrapid™ and FloTrac/Vigileo™Requires only arterial line; Beat-by-beat CO monitoring (this may help to evaluate response to IV fluids). - Validated by clinical studies in different medical and surgical conditionsPresence of arterial line with optimum waveform signal is a prerequisite; Accuracy may be reduced by sever arrhythmia; Needs frequent recalibration during periods of hemodynamic Instability
Lithium dilutionLiDCOplusSimple technique (can use peripheral arterial line); Continuous CO monitoringArterial line required; Accuracy affected by some neuromuscular blocking drugs; Lithium chloride is contraindicated in patients undergoing treatment with lithium salts
Electrical bioimpedanceBioZ®Completely non-invasiveNumerous mathematical assumptions; Limited validity in patients with dysrhythmias
Partial CO2 rebreathingNICO™Easy to set upRequires intubation and mechanical ventilation with minimal gas exchange abnormalities and fixed ventilator settings; Accuracy decreased with haemodynamic instability
Pulsed dye densitometryDDG-330®Non-invasiveIntermittent assessment; Accuracy may be affected by vasoconstriction, movement of the sensor and interstitial oedema

The reliability of these new techniques to guide fluid therapy in surgical cases has been investigated in several clinical trials. The conclusion of these trials is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 Dynamic evaluation of fluid status in comparison to conventional approach.
AuthorPatients No.Study groupConclusion
Berkenstadt et al[21], 200115Patients undergoing brain surgerySVV could predict fluid responsiveness to even a small volume loading of 100 mL of 6% hydroxyethyl starch given for two minutes; There was no correlation between the changes in SV and the values of the CVP and heart rate before or after loading
Rex et al[22], 200414Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patientsThe dynamic index SVV allowed real-time monitoring of left ventricular preload. Moreover, it allowed assessing the haemodynamic effect of a fluid challenge; Other preload variables (i.e., PAOP, CVP, LVEDAI and ITBI) failed to predict fluid responsiveness
Preisman et al[23], 200518Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patientsFunctional haemodynamic indices were superior to static indicators of cardiac preload in predicting fluid responsiveness; Use of CVP for the evaluation of intravascular volume status, have been found to lack any predictive value
Hofer et al[24], 200540CABG patientsStroke volume index was significantly correlated with SVV (P < 0.001) and PPV (P < 0.001) only; While CVP failed to have a significant correlation (P = 0.235)
Wiesenack et al[25], 200520CABG patientsStroke volume index correlated significantly with SVV and PPV derived from pulse contour analysis (P < 0.05) but not with CVP or pulmonary artery wedge pressure
Cannesson et al[26], 200618CABG patientsLeft ventricular stroke area measured by transoesophageal echocardiographic automated border detection is not only sensitive to changes in preload but also, can quantify the effects of volume expansion on cardiac output; The difference in CVP reading did not reach statistical significance in the study groups
Lee et al[27], 200720Neurosurgical patientsCorrected flow time by oesophageal Doppler and PPV are better than CVP and LVEDAI in predicting fluid responsiveness
Cannesson et al[28], 200725CABG patientsΔPOP can predict response to volume expansion as well as quantify the effects of volume expansion on hemodynamic parameters during cardiac surgery; There was no statistically significant relation between CVP and increase in cardiac index after volume expansion
Belloni et al[29], 200819CABG patientsTheir results confirm the ability of SVV (P = 0.0005) and PPV (P = 0.001) to predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients during cardiac surgery No significant differences were found in mean LVEDA and CVP before and after fluid administration
Biais et al[30], 200835Postoperative period of liver transplantationSVV and PPV measurement by arterial waveform analysis can be used to predict the effects of volume expansion in mechanically ventilated patients after liver transplantation; The failure of CVP and PAOP to predict fluid responsiveness agrees with increasing evidence that static preload indicators are not suitable for functional haemodynamic monitoring
Hofer et al[31], 200840CABG patientsConventional static preload parameters failed to reflect the fluid status or to predict fluid responsiveness. CVP is therefore unsuitable for predicting ventricular response to fluid loading; SVV measured by the FloTrac™/Vigileo™ and the PiCCOplus™ systems exhibited similar performances regarding predicting fluid responsiveness
de Waal et al[32], 200918CABG patientsSVV of > 8% can predict fluid responsiveness with 100% sensitivity and 78% specificity, while PPV ≥ 10% can identify fluid-responders with 64% sensitivity and 100% specificity; CVP readings were not better in predicting fluid responsiveness than random chance
Cannesson et al[33], 200925CABG patientsSVV of 10% helped in discrimination of responders to volume expansion with an 82% sensitivity and 88% specificity; SVV may be a potential alternative to DeltaPP which is an accurate predictor of fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients; SVV was significantly a better predictor of fluid responsiveness than CVP and PCWP in this study
Zimmermann et al[34], 201020Elective major abdominal surgeryBoth SVV and PVI are valid indicators of fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients during major abdominal surgery; CVP did not adequately reflect circulating blood volume and failed to predict fluid responsiveness in this study
Desgranges et al[35], 201128CABG patientsPVI can predict fluid responsiveness during general anaesthesia whatever the site of measurement in the operating room (the finger, the ear, and the forehead); PCWP and CVP showed no significant difference between responders and non-responders
Shin et al[36], 201133Elective living donor liver transplantationFemoral SVV > 8% can predict responders to fluid loading with a specificity of 80% and a sensitivity of 89%; CVP and PAOP did not correlate with the changes in the cardiac index that occurred with a fluid challenge
Broch et al[37], 201181CABG patientsSVV (P = 0.002) and PPV (P < 0.0001) were found to be reliable indicators for fluid responsiveness unlike CVP (P = 0.13) that failed to predict it; PVI ability to predict fluid responsiveness is limited in the presence of low perfusion indices
Cannesson et al[38], 2011413Multicentre study of different abdominal and cardiac surgeriesPPV [AUC 0.89 (0.86; 0.92)] is superior to CVP [AUC 0.57 (0.54; 0.59)] in prediction of fluid responsiveness (P < 0.001)
Yazigi et al[39], 201260CABG patients older than 70 yrPPV is a reliable predictor of fluid responsiveness while CVP and PAOP were not better than a random chance in predicting the response to fluid; PPV reliability was not affected by the decreased arterial compliance and increased arterial stiffness related to aging
Bogović et al[40], 201724Major (abdominal or trauma) surgeryThe study stressed on the inability of CVP to provide a valid evaluation of the preload; SVV and PPV monitored by LiDCO™ were better alternatives for preload assessment
CONCLUSION

Although CVP measurement continues to be popular, yet it is not ideal for guiding and monitoring of fluid management in renal transplantation. It is noteworthy that there may be large variations in intravascular volume status and the patients have limited range of intravascular volume that can be called euvolemia (because of co-morbidities, vascular complications, drugs and the effects of disease on the autonomic nervous system). Therefore, the volume that is infused in a patient whose fluid balance status is doubtful is going to be imprecise if CVP is to be relied upon to appreciate their baseline value. Pulmonary oedema could be the first sign of fluid overload. Other variables such as the patient position, the use of abdominal retractors, and the positive pressure ventilation make any CVP reading meaningless. As clearly evident from the data presented in Tables 1-3, we suggest that CVP measurement be abandoned in renal transplantation since it may be misleading. Alternative to CVP, we recommend using intra-operative and post-operative cardiac output monitoring devices for guiding fluid therapy in renal transplant recipients. Understanding their limitations helps to provide more robust monitoring of fluid therapy. Giving that these novel tools are only used in the ITU/HDU and operating theatre settings, management of these patients on the ward relies mainly on regular vital signs monitoring including daily body weight rather than being misled by erroneous CVP reading.

Footnotes

Manuscript source: Unsolicited manuscript

Specialty type: Transplantation

Country of origin: United Kingdom

Peer-review report classification

Grade A (Excellent): A

Grade B (Very good): B

Grade C (Good): C, C

Grade D (Fair): 0

Grade E (Poor): 0

P- Reviewer: Markic D, Pandey CK, Salvadori M, Tarantino G S- Editor: Cui LJ L- Editor: A E- Editor: Tan WW

References
1.  GAUER OH, HENRY JP, SIEKER HO. Changes in central venous pressure after moderate hemorrhage and transfusion in man. Circ Res. 1956;4:79-84.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 85]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 86]  [Article Influence: 1.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
2.  Zochios V, Ansari B, Jones N. Is central venous pressure a reliable indicator of fluid responsiveness in the critically ill? Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2014;75:598.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1]  [Article Influence: 0.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
3.  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.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1034]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 895]  [Article Influence: 55.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
4.  Marik PE, Cavallazzi R. Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? An updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:1774-1781.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 515]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 491]  [Article Influence: 44.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
5.  Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, Beale R, Bakker J, Hofer C, Jaeschke R, Mebazaa A, Pinsky MR, Teboul JL. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1795-1815.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 947]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 990]  [Article Influence: 99.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
6.  McIntyre LA, Hébert PC, Fergusson D, Cook DJ, Aziz A; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. A survey of Canadian intensivists' resuscitation practices in early septic shock. Crit Care. 2007;11:R74.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 63]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 69]  [Article Influence: 4.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
7.  Bignami E, Belletti A, Moliterni P, Frati E, Guarnieri M, Tritapepe L. Clinical practice in perioperative monitoring in adult cardiac surgery: is there a standard of care? Results from an national survey. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30:347-365.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 16]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15]  [Article Influence: 1.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
8.  Sondergaard S, Parkin G, Aneman A. Central venous pressure: soon an outcome-associated matter. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2016;29:179-185.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 16]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 17]  [Article Influence: 2.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
9.  Smith T, Grounds RM, Rhodes A. Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (Book 42). Central Venous Pressure: Uses and Limitations. Springer. 2005;99-110.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
10.  Amoroso P, Greenwood RN. Posture and central venous pressure measurement in circulatory volume depletion. Lancet. 1989;2:258-260.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 19]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20]  [Article Influence: 0.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
11.  Pilat J, Dabrowski W, Biernacka J, Bicki J, Rudzki S. Changes in intra-abdominal, iliac venous and central venous pressures in patients undergoing abdominal surgery due to large tumors of the colon--a pilot study. Acta Clin Croat. 2010;49:381-388.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
12.  De Gasperi A, Narcisi S, Mazza E, Bettinelli L, Pavani M, Perrone L, Grugni C, Corti A. Perioperative fluid management in kidney transplantation: is volume overload still mandatory for graft function? Transplant Proc. 2006;38:807-809.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 42]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 47]  [Article Influence: 2.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
13.  Agarwal AK. Central vein stenosis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61:1001-1015.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 99]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 110]  [Article Influence: 10.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
14.  Agarwal AK, Patel BM, Haddad NJ. Central vein stenosis: a nephrologist's perspective. Semin Dial. 2007;20:53-62.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 184]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 161]  [Article Influence: 9.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
15.  Geerts W. Central venous catheter-related thrombosis. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2014;2014:306-311.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 103]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 124]  [Article Influence: 12.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
16.  Srivastava D, Sahu S, Chandra A, Tiwari T, Kumar S, Singh PK. Effect of intraoperative transesophageal Doppler-guided fluid therapy versus central venous pressure-guided fluid therapy on renal allograft outcome in patients undergoing living donor renal transplant surgery: a comparative study. J Anesth. 2015;29:842-849.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 16]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10]  [Article Influence: 1.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
17.  Kumar L, Rajan S, Baalachandran R. Outcomes associated with stroke volume variation versus central venous pressure guided fluid replacements during major abdominal surgery. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2016;32:182-186.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 14]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14]  [Article Influence: 1.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
18.  Halawa A, Rowe S, Roberts F, Nathan C, Hassan A, Kumar A, Suvakov B, Edwards B, Gray C. A Better Journey for Patients, a Better Deal for the NHS: The Successful Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery Program After Renal Transplant Surgery. Exp Clin Transplant. 2018;16:127-132.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 6]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11]  [Article Influence: 1.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
19.  Alhashemi JA, Cecconi M, Hofer CK. Cardiac output monitoring: an integrative perspective. Crit Care. 2011;15:214.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 143]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 147]  [Article Influence: 11.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
20.  Funk DJ, Moretti EW, Gan TJ. Minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring in the perioperative setting. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:887-897.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 155]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 160]  [Article Influence: 10.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
21.  Berkenstadt H, Margalit N, Hadani M, Friedman Z, Segal E, Villa Y, Perel A. Stroke volume variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing brain surgery. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:984-989.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 306]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 320]  [Article Influence: 13.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
22.  Rex S, Brose S, Metzelder S, Hüneke R, Schälte G, Autschbach R, Rossaint R, Buhre W. Prediction of fluid responsiveness in patients during cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2004;93:782-788.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 131]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 142]  [Article Influence: 7.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
23.  Preisman S, Kogan S, Berkenstadt H, Perel A. Predicting fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: functional haemodynamic parameters including the Respiratory Systolic Variation Test and static preload indicators. Br J Anaesth. 2005;95:746-755.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 199]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 169]  [Article Influence: 8.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
24.  Hofer CK, Müller SM, Furrer L, Klaghofer R, Genoni M, Zollinger A. Stroke volume and pulse pressure variation for prediction of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Chest. 2005;128:848-854.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 214]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 227]  [Article Influence: 11.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
25.  Wiesenack C, Fiegl C, Keyser A, Prasser C, Keyl C. Assessment of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgical patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22:658-665.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 105]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 114]  [Article Influence: 6.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
26.  Cannesson M, Slieker J, Desebbe O, Farhat F, Bastien O, Lehot JJ. Prediction of fluid responsiveness using respiratory variations in left ventricular stroke area by transoesophageal echocardiographic automated border detection in mechanically ventilated patients. Crit Care. 2006;10:R171.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 37]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 39]  [Article Influence: 2.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
27.  Lee JH, Kim JT, Yoon SZ, Lim YJ, Jeon Y, Bahk JH, Kim CS. Evaluation of corrected flow time in oesophageal Doppler as a predictor of fluid responsiveness. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99:343-348.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 88]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 90]  [Article Influence: 5.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
28.  Cannesson M, Attof Y, Rosamel P, Desebbe O, Joseph P, Metton O, Bastien O, Lehot JJ. Respiratory variations in pulse oximetry plethysmographic waveform amplitude to predict fluid responsiveness in the operating room. Anesthesiology. 2007;106:1105-1111.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 159]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 135]  [Article Influence: 7.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
29.  Belloni L, Pisano A, Natale A, Piccirillo MR, Piazza L, Ismeno G, De Martino G. Assessment of fluid-responsiveness parameters for off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: a comparison among LiDCO, transesophageal echochardiography, and pulmonary artery catheter. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2008;22:243-248.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 64]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 69]  [Article Influence: 4.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
30.  Biais M, Nouette-Gaulain K, Cottenceau V, Revel P, Sztark F. Uncalibrated pulse contour-derived stroke volume variation predicts fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients undergoing liver transplantation. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101:761-768.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 128]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 135]  [Article Influence: 8.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
31.  Hofer CK, Senn A, Weibel L, Zollinger A. Assessment of stroke volume variation for prediction of fluid responsiveness using the modified FloTrac and PiCCOplus system. Crit Care. 2008;12:R82.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 153]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 163]  [Article Influence: 10.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
32.  de Waal EE, Rex S, Kruitwagen CL, Kalkman CJ, Buhre WF. Dynamic preload indicators fail to predict fluid responsiveness in open-chest conditions. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:510-515.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 102]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 102]  [Article Influence: 6.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
33.  Cannesson M, Musard H, Desebbe O, Boucau C, Simon R, Hénaine R, Lehot JJ. The ability of stroke volume variations obtained with Vigileo/FloTrac system to monitor fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:513-517.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 152]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 142]  [Article Influence: 9.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
34.  Zimmermann M, Feibicke T, Keyl C, Prasser C, Moritz S, Graf BM, Wiesenack C. Accuracy of stroke volume variation compared with pleth variability index to predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients undergoing major surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:555-561.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 91]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 87]  [Article Influence: 6.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
35.  Desgranges FP, Desebbe O, Ghazouani A, Gilbert K, Keller G, Chiari P, Robin J, Bastien O, Lehot JJ, Cannesson M. Influence of the site of measurement on the ability of plethysmographic variability index to predict fluid responsiveness. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:329-335.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 43]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 43]  [Article Influence: 3.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
36.  Shin YH, Ko JS, Gwak MS, Kim GS, Lee JH, Lee SK. Utility of uncalibrated femoral stroke volume variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness during the anhepatic phase of liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2011;17:53-59.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 22]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 22]  [Article Influence: 1.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
37.  Broch O, Bein B, Gruenewald M, Höcker J, Schöttler J, Meybohm P, Steinfath M, Renner J. Accuracy of the pleth variability index to predict fluid responsiveness depends on the perfusion index. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2011;55:686-693.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 76]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 79]  [Article Influence: 6.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
38.  Cannesson M, Le Manach Y, Hofer CK, Goarin JP, Lehot JJ, Vallet B, Tavernier B. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of pulse pressure variations for the prediction of fluid responsiveness: a "gray zone" approach. Anesthesiology. 2011;115:231-241.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 363]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 369]  [Article Influence: 28.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
39.  Yazigi A, Khoury E, Hlais S, Madi-Jebara S, Haddad F, Hayek G, Jabbour K. Pulse pressure variation predicts fluid responsiveness in elderly patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012;26:387-390.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 21]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 23]  [Article Influence: 1.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
40.  Bogović TZ, Bulum A, Hrabač P, Perić M, Tonković D, Pavlović DB, Baronica R. CVP vs. dynamic hemodynamic parameters as preload indicators in hemodynamically unstable patients after major surgery. Signa Vitae. 2017;13:56-60.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1]  [Article Influence: 0.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]