Central venous pressure measurement has been the standard for patient monitoring during hepatectomy to assure low pressure and reduce blood loss. Recently SVV has been employed to monitor preload and guide fluid replacement during liver surgery. The aim of the study is to determine if SVV correlates with CVP values and may replace CVP measurement.
From January 2021 to February 2022 thirty patients undergoing 32 liver resections were included in the study. Repeated paired data of CVP and SVV were determined every 10 minutes throughout liver resection. The Correlation between CVP and SVV values was calculated. Analysis was then stratified by surgical approach, hilar clamping tempus, operative timing and PEEP values.
A total number of 519 paired SSV/CVP values were recorded. Only a very weak correlation between SSV and CVP was detected (Pearson coefficient -0.122/ p=0.005). The results were unaltered after the stratified analysis by surgical approach, presence of hilar clamping, operative timing and PEEP use, revealing no correlation between SSV and CVP values.
The CVP /SVV values do not show a relevant correlation during liver surgery. CVP measurement is still of value and should not be replaced by SVV monitoring to conduct a safe hepatectomy.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to HPB
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Central venous pressure and liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.HPB. 2015; 17: 863-871
- Central venous pressure and its effect on blood loss during liver resection.Br J Surg. 1998; 85: 1058-1060
- Accuracy of stroke volume variation in predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Anesth. 2011; 25: 904-916
- Clinical impact of the Sherlock 3CG® Tip Confirmation System for peripherally inserted central catheters.J Int Med Res. 2018; 46: 5176-5182
- Risk factors influencing postoperative outcomes of major hepatic resection of hepatocellular carcinoma for patients with underlying liver diseases.World J Surg. 2011; 35: 2073-2082
- A Cochrane systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing treatment strategies aiming to decrease blood loss during liver resection.Int J Surg. 2015; 23 (Pt A): 128-136
- Application of controlled low central venous pressure during hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Clin Anesth. 2021; 75110467
- Predicting the need for fluid therapy-does fluid responsiveness work?.J Intensive Care. 2017; 5: 34
- Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update.Ann Intensive Care. 2016; 6: 111
- Guidelines for perioperative care for liver surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) society recommendations 2022.World J Surg. 2023; 47: 11-34
Published online: February 08, 2023
Accepted: January 27, 2023
Received: December 26, 2022
Publication stageIn Press Corrected Proof
© 2023 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.