Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Cardiovascular Medicine›Central Venous Pressure
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Central Venous Pressure

Cardiovascular Medicine · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 5 min read

The blood pressure in the central large veins of the body.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (965 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

The blood pressure in the central large veins of the body. It is distinguished from peripheral venous pressure which occurs in an extremity.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Venous Pressure, Central; Central Venous Pressures; Pressure, Central Venous; Pressures, Central Venous; Venous Pressures, Central.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Venous Pressure

Related concepts

  • Veins

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 4,813 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Central Venous Pressure” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 310 of them (6.4%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 3,115 records.

Reviews account for 284 records (5.9%) and meta-analyses for 21. Randomized controlled trials number 219 (4.6%) as a share of all records on the topic.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 3,115 records; 2000-2009: 603 records; 2010-2019: 785 records; 2020 onward: 310 records3,115through 19996032000-20097852010-20193102020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19993,115
2000-2009603
2010-2019785
2020 onward310
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 5.9 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.4 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 4.6 percentReviews5.9% (284)Meta-analyses0.4% (21)Randomized controlled trials4.6% (219)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 4,813 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews2845.9%
Meta-analyses210.4%
Randomized controlled trials2194.6%

Method: PubMed query "Central Venous Pressure"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in cardiovascular medicine

Cardiovascular medicine has an unusually large body of randomized trials, so the type of outcome matters: hard clinical events such as death, heart attack and stroke carry more weight than changes in blood pressure, cholesterol or imaging markers that only predict risk. Observational studies can show associations but are confounded by age, lifestyle and other illness. Check whether a result is about prevention or treatment, the baseline risk of participants, and the absolute rather than only the relative size of any benefit.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
The efficacy of sonographic measurement of inferior vena cava diameter as an estimate of central venous pressure
Ciozda W, Kedan I, Kehl DW, Zimmer R, Khandwalla R, Kimchi A
2016Review article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
133cc by
PMID 27542597 · DOI · PMC4992235
Low mean perfusion pressure is a risk factor for progression of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients - A retrospective analysis
Ostermann M, Hall A, Crichton S
2017Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
89cc by
PMID 28468613 · DOI · PMC5415805
Elevated central venous pressure is associated with increased mortality and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis
Chen CY, Zhou Y, Wang P, Qi EY, Gu WJ
2020Meta-analysis
Design not recorded in structured metadata
77cc by
PMID 32138764 · DOI · PMC7059303
Role of Central Venous Pressure and Mean Arterial Pressure to Central Venous Pressure Ratio in Assessing Poisoning Severity and Poor Outcomes in Intensive Care Unit-Admitted Acute Aluminum Phosphide-Poisoned Patients
Lashin HI, Mahran MM, Adel B
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
2cc by
PMID 41831064 · DOI · PMC12988964

The efficacy of sonographic measurement of inferior vena cava diameter as an estimate of central venous pressure [1]

Review article Ciozda W, Kedan I, Kehl DW, Zimmer R, Khandwalla R, Kimchi A · · 2016 · cited 133 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundCentral venous pressure (CVP) and right atrial pressure (RAP) are important parameters in the complete hemodynamic assessment of a patient.
Closing excerpt
Given the ease, safety, and availability of this non-invasive technique, broader adoption and application of this method in clinical settings is warranted.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (231 words)

BackgroundCentral venous pressure (CVP) and right atrial pressure (RAP) are important parameters in the complete hemodynamic assessment of a patient. Sonographic measurement of the inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter is a non-invasive method of estimating these parameters, but there are limited data summarizing its diagnostic accuracy across multiple studies. We performed a comprehensive review of the existing literature to examine the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of sonographic measurement of IVC diameter as a method for assessing CVP and RAP.MethodsWe performed a systematic search using PubMed of clinical studies comparing sonographic evaluation of IVC diameter and collapsibility against gold standard measurements of CVP and RAP. We included clinical studies that were performed in adults, used current imaging techniques, and were published in English.ResultsTwenty one clinical studies were identified that compared sonographic assessment of IVC diameter with CVP and RAP and met all inclusion criteria. Despite substantial heterogeneity in measurement techniques and patient populations, most studies demonstrated moderate strength correlations between measurements of IVC diameter and collapsibility and CVP or RAP, but more favorable diagnostic accuracy using pre-specified cut points. Findings were inconsistent among mechanically ventilated patients, except in the absence of positive end-expiratory pressure.ConclusionSonographic measurement of IVC diameter and collapsibility is a valid method of estimating CVP and RAP. Given the ease, safety, and availability of this non-invasive technique, broader adoption and application of this method in clinical settings is warranted.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 27542597 · DOI · PMC4992235

Low mean perfusion pressure is a risk factor for progression of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients - A retrospective analysis [2]

Research article Ostermann M, Hall A, Crichton S · · 2017 · cited 89 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundThe aim was to investigate whether mean perfusion pressure (MPP) calculated as the difference between mean arterial pressure (MAP) and central venous pressure (CVP) was associated with risk of progression from AKI I to AKI III in critically ill patients.
Closing excerpt
CVP was the key component of MPP.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (257 words)

BackgroundThe aim was to investigate whether mean perfusion pressure (MPP) calculated as the difference between mean arterial pressure (MAP) and central venous pressure (CVP) was associated with risk of progression from AKI I to AKI III in critically ill patients.MethodsRetrospective analysis of adult patients admitted to a multi-disciplinary adult intensive care unit (ICU) between July 2007 and June 2009 who developed AKI I and in whom advanced haemodynamic monitoring was initiated within 12 h of diagnosis of AKI I. We compared patients with a MPP above and below the median value in the first 12 h of diagnosis of AKI. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors for progression to AKI III, to explore the impact of MAP and CVP separately, and to investigate the impact of MPP in pre-defined sub-groups.ResultsAmong 2118 ICU patients, 790 patients (37%) developed AKI I of whom 205 underwent advanced haemodynamic monitoring within 12 h of AKI stage I. Their median MPP was 59 mmHg. AKI I patients with a MPP ≤59 mmHg had a significantly higher risk of progressing to AKI stage III (48.6% versus 34%, respectively; p = 0.0034). This association was stronger in patients with ischemic heart disease, congestive cardiac failure or without pre-existing hypertension and in patients with a MAP 1 h. As individual components, a raised CVP was independently associated with progression to AKI stage III but MAP alone was not an independent risk factor for AKI progression.ConclusionMPP <60 mmHg was independently associated with AKI progression. CVP was the key component of MPP.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 28468613 · DOI · PMC5415805

Elevated central venous pressure is associated with increased mortality and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis [3]

Meta-analysis Chen CY, Zhou Y, Wang P, Qi EY, Gu WJ · · 2020 · cited 77 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundThe association of central venous pressure (CVP) and mortality and acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill adult patients remains unclear.
Closing excerpt
Trial registrationPROSPERO, CRD42019126381.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (225 words)

BackgroundThe association of central venous pressure (CVP) and mortality and acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill adult patients remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether elevated CVP is associated with increased mortality and AKI in critically ill adult patients.MethodsWe searched PubMed and Embase through June 2019 to identify studies that investigated the association between CVP and mortality and/or AKI in critically ill adult patients admitted into the intensive care unit. We calculated the summary odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI using a random-effects model.ResultsFifteen cohort studies with a broad spectrum of critically ill patients (mainly sepsis) were included. On a dichotomous scale, elevated CVP was associated with an increased risk of mortality (3 studies; 969 participants; OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.19-2.29) and AKI (2 studies; 689 participants; OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.39-3.14). On a continuous scale, higher CVP was associated with greater risk of mortality (5 studies; 7837 participants; OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17) and AKI (6 studies; 5446 participants; OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06-1.23). Furthermore, per 1 mmHg increase in CVP increased the odds of AKI by 6% (4 studies; 5150 participants; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12). Further analyses restricted to patients with sepsis showed consistent results.ConclusionsElevated CVP is associated with an increased risk of mortality and AKI in critically ill adult patients admitted into the intensive care unit.Trial registrationPROSPERO, CRD42019126381.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 32138764 · DOI · PMC7059303

Role of Central Venous Pressure and Mean Arterial Pressure to Central Venous Pressure Ratio in Assessing Poisoning Severity and Poor Outcomes in Intensive Care Unit-Admitted Acute Aluminum Phosphide-Poisoned Patients [4]

Research article Lashin HI, Mahran MM, Adel B · · 2026 · cited 2 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Aluminum phosphide (ALP) is a highly toxic pesticide endangering the healthcare system.
Closing excerpt
Lower MAP/CVP ratios and higher CVP measurements are alarming signs, warranting a higher risk of the need for MV and in-hospital mortality in acute ALP poisoning.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (252 words)

Aluminum phosphide (ALP) is a highly toxic pesticide endangering the healthcare system. Higher central venous pressure (CVP) values may be linked to poorer outcomes in various medical conditions. This study evaluated the role of CVP and mean arterial pressure (MAP)/CVP ratio as prognostic factors for intensive care unit (ICU) admitted acute ALP-poisoned patients. This retrospective study included 145 acutely ALP-poisoned patients who were referred to the ICU during two years. Data regarding history, clinical manifestations, laboratory investigations, and outcome were collected and stratified by quartiles (Q1-Q4) of the measured CVP during the first 6 h after admission. In-hospital mortality and need for mechanical ventilation (MV) were significantly predominant in Q3 and Q4 groups of CVP levels (89.4% and 92% & 91.5% and 96%, respectively) (p-values < 0.001). After vasopressors administration, survivors demonstrated a significant mean reduction in CVP measurements (-4.5 mmHg), whereas non-survivors had a mean increase (+ 0.6 mmHg) (p = 0.011). MAP/CVP ratio has good discriminatory power (the areas under the curve (AUCs) = 0.836 and 0.846) for predicting the need for MV and in-hospital mortality, respectively. The CVP measurement (AUCs = 0.812 and 0.782, respectively) comes in second, followed by the poisoning severity score (AUCs = 0.778 and 0.768, respectively). There was a significant decrease in survival probability in patients with CVP ≥ 25 mmHg, and MAP/CVP ratio ≤ 2.48 (p-values < 0.001). Lower MAP/CVP ratios and higher CVP measurements are alarming signs, warranting a higher risk of the need for MV and in-hospital mortality in acute ALP poisoning.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41831064 · DOI · PMC12988964

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares [5]
    Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B · Chest · 2008 · cited 849 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article The clinical use of HVPG measurements in chronic liver disease [6]
    Bosch J, Abraldes JG, Berzigotti A, García-Pagan JC · Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol · 2009 · cited 526 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? An updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense [7]
    Marik PE, Cavallazzi R · Crit Care Med · 2013 · cited 490 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Venous function and central venous pressure: a physiologic story [8]
    Gelman S · Anesthesiology · 2008 · cited 376 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Systematic review including re-analyses of 1148 individual data sets of central venous pressure as a predictor of fluid responsiveness [9]
    Eskesen TG, Wetterslev M, Perner A · Intensive Care Med · 2016 · cited 137 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Central venous pressure: A useful but not so simple measurement [10]
    Magder S · Crit Care Med · 2006 · cited 105 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Ciozda W, Kedan I, Kehl DW, Zimmer R, Khandwalla R, Kimchi A. The efficacy of sonographic measurement of inferior vena cava diameter as an estimate of central venous pressure. . 2016. PMID 27542597 · DOI · PMC4992235
  2. Ostermann M, Hall A, Crichton S. Low mean perfusion pressure is a risk factor for progression of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients - A retrospective analysis. . 2017. PMID 28468613 · DOI · PMC5415805
  3. Chen CY, Zhou Y, Wang P, Qi EY, Gu WJ. Elevated central venous pressure is associated with increased mortality and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis. . 2020. PMID 32138764 · DOI · PMC7059303
  4. Lashin HI, Mahran MM, Adel B. Role of Central Venous Pressure and Mean Arterial Pressure to Central Venous Pressure Ratio in Assessing Poisoning Severity and Poor Outcomes in Intensive Care Unit-Admitted Acute Aluminum Phosphide-Poisoned Patients. . 2026. PMID 41831064 · DOI · PMC12988964
  5. Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest. 2008. PMID 18628220 · DOI
  6. Bosch J, Abraldes JG, Berzigotti A, García-Pagan JC. The clinical use of HVPG measurements in chronic liver disease. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009. PMID 19724251 · DOI
  7. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R. Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? An updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense. Crit Care Med. 2013. PMID 23774337 · DOI
  8. Gelman S. Venous function and central venous pressure: a physiologic story. Anesthesiology. 2008. PMID 18362606 · DOI
  9. Eskesen TG, Wetterslev M, Perner A. Systematic review including re-analyses of 1148 individual data sets of central venous pressure as a predictor of fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2016. PMID 26650057 · DOI
  10. Magder S. Central venous pressure: A useful but not so simple measurement. Crit Care Med. 2006. PMID 16763509 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Venous PressureCardiovascular Medicine
  • Atrial PressureCardiovascular Medicine
  • Arterial PressureCardiovascular Medicine
  • Ventricular PressureCardiovascular Medicine
  • BaroreflexCardiovascular Medicine
  • Vascular ResistanceCardiovascular Medicine

All 105 articles in Cardiovascular Medicine →

At a glance

4,813
PubMed records on this heading
6%
published since 2020
284
review articles
219
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Venous PressureCardiovascular Medicine
  • Atrial PressureCardiovascular Medicine
  • Arterial PressureCardiovascular Medicine
  • Ventricular PressureCardiovascular Medicine
  • BaroreflexCardiovascular Medicine

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support