Original Manuscripts
Clinical Assessment of Central Venous Pressure in the Critically Ill

https://doi.org/10.1097/00000441-199003000-00006Get rights and content

ABSTRACT

To evaluate the accuracy of central venous pressure (CVP) assessment in critically ill patients, and measure disagreement amongst clinicians, 50 consecutive intensive care unit (ICU) patients with right internal jugular catheters were examined. CVP was measured by the indwelling catheter, and was assessed by: (1) one of three ICU staff physicians, (2) one of six medical residents, and (3) one of six medical students. There was no significant difference in CVP assessment between medical students, residents, and staff physicians. Although all clinicians tended to underestimate CVP, only the residents did so significantly (p < 0.05). Sensitivity and specificity, and agreement and correlation between the clinicians’ assessment and catheter measurements were higher when ventilated patients were excluded. All clinicians agreed more often and were better at identifying low CVP. In summary, considerable disagreement and inaccuracy exists in the clinical assessment of central venous pressure in critically ill patients.

References (16)

  • BraunwaldE.

    The physical examination

  • DavisonR. et al.

    Estimation of central venous pressure by examination of jugular veins

    Am Heart J

    (1984)
  • ConnorsA.F. et al.

    Evaluation of right heart catheterization in the critically ill patient without acute myocardial infarction

    N Engl J Med

    (1983)
  • EisenbergP.R. et al.

    Clinical evaluation compared to pulmonary artery catheterization in the hemodynamic assessment of critically ill patients

    Crit Care Med

    (1984)
  • DobbG.J. et al.

    Clinical examination of patients in the intensive care unit

    Br J Hosp Med

    (1987)
  • CohnJ.N.

    Central venous pressure as a guide to volume expansion

    Ann Intern Med

    (1964)
  • BriscoeC.E.

    A comparison of jugular and central venous pressure measurements during anaesthesia

    Brit J Anaesth

    (1973)
  • BlandJ.M. et al.

    Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement

    Lancet

    (1986)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

The author would like to thank Dr. D. L. Sackett of the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, for his scientific aduice.

View full text