Utility of central venous pressure measurement in renal transplantation: Is it evidence based?

Ahmed Aref, Tariq Zayan, Ajay Sharma, Ahmed Halawa, Ahmed Aref, Tariq Zayan, Ajay Sharma, Ahmed Halawa

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.

Keywords: Central venous pressure; Fluid monitoring; Renal transplantation.

Conflict of interest statement

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.

Figures

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.

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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, Beale R, Bakker J, Hofer C, Jaeschke R, Mebazaa A, Pinsky MR, Teboul JL, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1795–1815.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Sondergaard S, Parkin G, Aneman A. Central venous pressure: soon an outcome-associated matter. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2016;29:179–185.
    1. 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.
    1. Amoroso P, Greenwood RN. Posture and central venous pressure measurement in circulatory volume depletion. Lancet. 1989;2:258–260.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Agarwal AK. Central vein stenosis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61:1001–1015.
    1. Agarwal AK, Patel BM, Haddad NJ. Central vein stenosis: a nephrologist's perspective. Semin Dial. 2007;20:53–62.
    1. Geerts W. Central venous catheter-related thrombosis. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2014;2014:306–311.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Alhashemi JA, Cecconi M, Hofer CK. Cardiac output monitoring: an integrative perspective. Crit Care. 2011;15:214.
    1. Funk DJ, Moretti EW, Gan TJ. Minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring in the perioperative setting. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:887–897.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe