Ultrasonographic assessment of the internal jugular vein for the estimation of central venous pressure in hemodialysis patients: A preliminary study

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 253-258
Author(s):  
Basile Kerleroux ◽  
Jeremy Pasco ◽  
Mathieu Dupuis ◽  
Marine Eustache ◽  
Ahmed Lemrabott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Central Venous Pressure ◽  
Internal Jugular Vein ◽  
Jugular Vein ◽  
Venous Pressure ◽  
Hemodialysis Patients ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Preliminary Study ◽  
Ultrasonographic Assessment

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of internal jugular vein ultrasound in quantification of the central venous pressure for hemodialysis patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Abd Alrahman Baz ◽  
Amro Abdulrahim Ibrahim ◽  
Hussein Saeed El-Fishawy ◽  
Abo El-Magd Mohamed Al-Bohy
Keyword(s):  
Central Venous Pressure ◽  
Internal Jugular Vein ◽  
Significant Positive Correlation ◽  
Jugular Vein ◽  
Venous Pressure ◽  
Hemodialysis Patients ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Positive Correlation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Accuracy Measures

Abstract Background Assessment of the central venous pressure (CVP) is an essential hemodynamic parameter for monitoring the dialyzing patients. Our objective of the present study is to investigate the accuracy of CVP measurement by internal jugular vein US in comparison to the direct measurement by the central venous catheters for hemodialysis patients. We included 106 patients; where their CVP was assessed in two different non invasive US methods (CVPni) separately and in combination and the obtained measurements were correlated to the invasive measurements (CVPi) by catheters. Results By method 1, there is a highly significant positive correlation between CVPni and CVPi (ρ < 0.001) and a Pearson correlation coefficient (r = 0.913 n = 93), and by method 2, there is also a highly significant positive correlation between the CVPni and CVPi in both groups (r = 0.832, 95%, n = 106, p < 0.001), 1.935 was the cut-off point for prediction of CVP ≥ 10cmH20. For differentiation between patients with CVP < 10cmH20 and ≥ 10cmH20, the accuracy measures (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and overall accuracy) were 100%, 79.31%, 74.47%, 100%, and 87.10% by method 1, and were 91.11%, 85.48%, 82.00%, 92.98%, and 87.85% by method 2, while the combination of both methods had gained 88.57%, 89.66%, 83.78%, 92.86%, and 89.25%, respectively. Conclusion The US offered a reliable and non-invasive tool for monitoring CVP. The present study has a novelty of combining more than one US method and this had reported higher accuracy measures and outperformed the use of a single method.

Correlation between cross-sectional area of the internal jugular vein and central venous pressure

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kasana Raksamani ◽  
Vachira Udompornmongkol ◽  
Suwannee Suraseranivongse ◽  
Manee Raksakietisak ◽  
Benno von Bormann
Keyword(s):  
Central Venous Pressure ◽  
Internal Jugular Vein ◽  
Jugular Vein ◽  
Venous Pressure ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Cross Sectional
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document