Respiratory failure & ventilation
Relationship between esophageal and central venous pressure variation during respiratory activity: the best choice among four different methods to measure the amplitude of central venous pressure changes
Authors' conclusion
Among the different measurement strategies, ∆CVPtot-defined as the difference between the highest and lowest CVP values within a respiratory cycle-showed the strongest association with ∆Pes. Averaging over at least three consecutive breaths further enhanced this relationship.
Study context
- Population
- Mechanically ventilated patients2,286 breaths analysed
- Participants
- 22 participants
- Exposure
- Four methods to measure respiratory ∆central venous pressure (CVP) vs ∆pressure (Pes)
- Outcome
- Association between ∆Pes and each ∆CVP variant (linear mixed-effects models)
Methodological detailslinear mixed-effects models
- Linear mixed-effects models
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Association with ∆Pes
| Group | Marginal R² | Conditional R² |
|---|---|---|
| ∆CVPtot | 0.50 | 0.78 |
∆CVPtot
Marginal R²0.50
Conditional R²0.78
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Association with ∆Pes using median of multiple consecutive breaths
- Marginal R², median of 3 breaths
- 0.60
- Marginal R², median of 23 breaths
- 0.70
Original publication
Relationship between esophageal and central venous pressure variation during respiratory activity: the best choice among four different methods to measure the amplitude of central venous pressure changes. J Clin Monit Comput. Published 5 March 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →