Skip to main content


We're creating a new version of this page. See preview

  • Poster presentation
  • Open Access

Delta central venous pressure and dynamic indices of preload in postsurgical ICU patients

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
Critical Care201115 (Suppl 1) :P49

  • Published:


  • Public Health
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Stroke Volume
  • Pulse Pressure
  • Sinus Rhythm


Pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) are indices of fluid responsiveness. We tested whether delta central venous pressure (δCVP) could be used to see if enough volume has been given in order to produce a response in SV and therefore improve the accuracy of PPV and SVV [1].


Forty-nine fully ventilated patients in sinus rhythm were admitted postoperatively to the ICU monitored with pulse power analysis (PulseCO; LIDCO, Cambridge, UK). Fluid challenge (FC) consisted of 250 ml colloid over 5 minutes. Responder: SV increase >10%. δCVP was used to define two groups of patients: A (δCVP 0 to 1 mmHg) and B (δCVP >2).


Eighty-two FCs were performed. There were 33% responders in A versus 36% in B (not significant). For A + B, SVV and PPV AUCs were 0.81 and 0.78. There was no statistically significant difference in the AUC for SVV and PPV between A and B, but there were different best cut-off values (Table 1).

Table 1

All patients

AUC groups A + B, best cut-off groups A + B

AUC group A, best cut-off group A


0.81 (SE 0.06), 11.5% (77%/76%)

0.89 (SE 0.07), 15.5% (88%/88%)


0.78 (SE 0.06), 13.5% (75%/76%)

0.84 (SE 0.09), 15.5% (81%/75%)


Our data suggest that SVV/PPV efficacy in predicting a fluid response cannot be improved by looking at δCVP. More patients are needed to investigate the relationship between δCVP and best cut-off values for SVV and PPV.

Authors’ Affiliations

Saint George's Hospital, London, UK


  1. Lakhal K, et al.: Central venous pressure measurements improve the accuracy of leg raising-induced change in pulse pressure to predict fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med 2010, 36: 940-948.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar


© Cecconi et al. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.