Abstract
The central venous pressure, CVP, is an important variable in the management of selected perioperative and intensive care cases and in clinical decision support systems, CDSS. In current routine, when measuring CVP the health care provider may use anatomical landmarks and a spirit level, SL, to adjust the pressure transducer to the level of the tricuspid valve, i.e. the phlebostatic axis. The aim of the study was to assess the agreement in the postoperative setting between the SL method and electromagnetic 3D positioning (EM). CVP was measured with patients in positions dictated by nursing routines. The staff members measured CVP using SL to position the transducer at the perceived phlebostatic level. This position was compared to coordinates based on an electromagnetic field with external sensors at anatomical landmarks and an internal sensor in the CV catheter for 3D determination of the phlebostatic axis. An electronic survey took bearing on the accepted error in measurement among colleagues at the department. There was a clinically relevant difference between the CVP measured by the staff members and the CVP based on the 3D EM positioning. The limits of agreement extended in excess of ±8 mmHg and half of the measurements had deviations outside an accepted error range of ±2.5 mmHg. There was a large variation in CVP measurements when assessing the agreement with the current method. This may indicate the need for improvement in accuracy, e.g. using the electromagnetic field positioning system, in association with routine monitoring and clinical decision support systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Marik PE. Handbook of evidence-based critical care. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2010.
Sondergaard S, Parkin G, Aneman A. Central venous pressure: we need to bring clinical use into physiological context. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2015;59(5):552–60. doi:10.1111/aas.12490.
Li Z, Sun YM, Wu FX, Yang LQ, Lu ZJ, Yu WF. Controlled low central venous pressure reduces blood loss and transfusion requirements in hepatectomy. World J Gastroenterol WJG. 2014;20(1):303–9. doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i1.303.
Wolmesjö N. Reducing blood loss within liver surgery. Department of Anaesthesia, General Surgery and Intensive care; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg University; 2013.
Correa-Gallego C, Berman A, Denis SC, Langdon-Embry L, O’Connor D, Arslan-Carlon V, Kingham TP, D’Angelica MI, Allen PJ, Fong Y, DeMatteo RP, Jarnagin WR, Melendez J, Fischer M. Renal function after low central venous pressure-assisted liver resection: assessment of 2116 cases. HPB Off J Int Hepato Pancreato Biliary Asso. 2014;. doi:10.1111/hpb.12347.
Legrand M, Dupuis C, Simon C, Gayat E, Mateo J, Lukaszewicz AC, Payen D. Association between systemic hemodynamics and septic acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: a retrospective observational study. Crit Care. 2013;17(6):R278. doi:10.1186/cc13133.
Parkin WG. Volume state control—a new approach. Crit Care and Resusc J Austr Acad Crit Care Med. 1999;1(3):311–21.
Magder S, Bafaqeeh F. The clinical role of central venous pressure measurements. J Intensive Care Med. 2007;22(1):44–51. doi:10.1177/0885066606295303.
Gelman S. Venous function and central venous pressure: a physiologic story. Anesthesiology. 2008;108(4):735–48. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181672607.
Magder S. How to use central venous pressure measurements. Current Opin Crit Care. 2005;11(3):264–70.
Magder S. Hemodynamic monitoring in the mechanically ventilated patient. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2011;17(1):36–42. doi:10.1097/MCC.0b013e32834272c1.
Pedersen A, Husby J. Venous pressure measurement. I. Choice of zero level. Acta Med Scand. 1951;141(3):185–94.
Bo LE, Leira HO, Tangen GA, Hofstad EF, Amundsen T, Lango T. Accuracy of electromagnetic tracking with a prototype field generator in an interventional OR setting. Med Phys. 2012;39(1):399–406. doi:10.1118/1.3666768.
Walder B, Maillard J, Lubbeke A. Minimal clinically important difference: a novel approach to measure changes in outcome in perioperative medicine. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015;32(2):77–8. doi:10.1097/EJA.0000000000000147.
Johnson M, Mannar R, Wu AV. Correlation between blood loss and inferior vena caval pressure during liver resection. Br J Surg. 1998;85(2):188–90. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00570.x.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet. 1995;346(8982):1085–7.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(2):135–60.
Olofsen E, Dahan A, Borsboom G, Drummond G. Improvements in the application and reporting of advanced Bland-Altman methods of comparison. J Clin Monit Comput. 2015;29(1):127–39. doi:10.1007/s10877-014-9577-3.
Peake SL, Delaney A, Bailey M, Bellomo R, Cameron PA, Cooper DJ, Higgins AM, Holdgate A, Howe BD, Webb SA, Williams P. Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(16):1496–506. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1404380.
Mouncey PR, Osborn TM, Power GS, Harrison DA, Sadique MZ, Grieve RD, Jahan R, Harvey SE, Bell D, Bion JF, Coats TJ, Singer M, Young JD, Rowan KM, Pro MTI. Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1301–11. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1500896.
Yealy DM, Kellum JA, Huang DT, Barnato AE, Weissfeld LA, Pike F, Terndrup T, Wang HE, Hou PC, LoVecchio F, Filbin MR, Shapiro NI, Angus DC. A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. New Engl J Med. 2014;370(18):1683–93. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1401602.
McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(3):267–77. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015.
Guyton AC, Greganti FP. A physiologic reference point for measuring circulatory pressures in the dog; particularly venous pressure. Am J Physiol. 1956;185(1):137–41.
Critchley LA, Critchley JA. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput. 1999;15(2):85–91.
Columb MO. Clinical measurement and assessing agreement. Curr Anaesth Criti Care. 2008;19(5–6):328–9. doi:10.1016/j.cacc.2008.07.001.
Parkin WG, Leaning MS. Therapeutic control of the circulation. J Clin Monit Comput. 2008;22(6):391–400. doi:10.1007/s10877-008-9147-7.
Acknowledgments
David Wilkes, Vygon, Ecouen, France is warmly acknowledged for developing and providing the multilumen CVCs with one lumen blinded.
Author’s contribution
S.A.: Designed the study, developed materials and methods, performed and analyzed measurements. Wrote draft of manuscript. I.U.: Designed the study, developed materials and methods, performed and analyzed measurements. Wrote draft of manuscript. D.M.: Derived the algorithms for vector analysis of measurements and implemented them in Excel. S.S.: Conceived and designed the study. Assisted in development of materials and methods and analyzed measurements. Reviewed and corrected draft of manuscript. All authors reviewed and accepted the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest.
Informed consent
The study was approved by the Gothenburg Regional Ethics Committee (Reg. no. 019-14). Participants received oral and written information during the preoperative assessment before signing consent.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Avellan, S., Uhr, I., McKelvey, D. et al. Identifying the position of the right atrium to align pressure transducer for CVP. J Clin Monit Comput 31, 943–949 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-016-9918-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-016-9918-5