Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 3, 2025

Echocardiographic Assessment Using Subxiphoid-Only Examination for Hypotensive Patients
Published on: April 18, 2025
Clinical value of CVP+VIVC in predicting fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock
Haitao Zhang1, Chang Liu1, Aiping Cao2
1Department of Critical Care Medicine, Xinrui Hospital, Xinwu District, Wuxi, China.
Objective:
To explore the clinical value of central venous pressure (CVP) + inferior vena cava respiratory variability (VIVC) in fluid resuscitation in spontaneously breathing patients with septic shock.
Methods:
In retrospective observational study, during October 2019 to December 2021, 145 patients with septic shock treated in our hospital were enrolled by the method of observational study. According to the change rate of cardiac output (ΔCO) ≥15% or ΔCO<15% after 30 minutes, they were assigned into volume-responsive and volume-unresponsive group depending early fluid resuscitation in sepsis. The clinical value of combination of CVP and VIVC in predicting fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock was compared.
Results:
The CVP of the study group was higher at 12h and 24h after fluid resuscitation, and the VIVC level of the study group at 6h, 12h and 24h after fluid resuscitation was higher (P<0.05). Pearson correlation analysis indicated that CVP, and VIVC levels were noticeably correlated with fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock (P<0.05). The area under curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) of CVP for predicting fluid resuscitation in septic shock patients was 0.694 and the cut-off value was 0.932, the sensitivity was 46.9%, and the specificity was 87.5%. VIVC predicted fluid resuscitation in septic shock patients with an AUC of 0.776, which was a cut-off value of 0.688, a sensitivity of 50.0%, and a specificity of 90.0%. Combination of CVP and VIVC predicted fluid resuscitation in septic shock patients with an AUC of 0.948, which was a cut-off value of 1.420, a sensitivity of 90.6%, and a specificity of 87.5%.
Conclusion:
Combination of CVP and VIVC may have a good effect on the evaluation of volume responsiveness in patients with septic shock, which is better than single CVP and VIVC. Combination of CVP and VIVC can be adopted to predict fluid responsiveness volume responsiveness in septic shock patients, which is of great significance for guiding clinical fluid responsiveness therapy.
Related Concept Videos
Assessment of Ventilation I: Respiratory Rate
A Ventilation assessment is critical for monitoring a patient's health status. Respiration, one of the most accessible vital signs, provides insights into the function of numerous body systems and can indicate serious health issues, such as brainstem injuries from head trauma.
Critical Guidelines for Assessing Ventilation:
Mechanical Ventilation II: Invasive Ventilation
Negative-Pressure Ventilators
Negative-pressure ventilators create a vacuum around the chest or body to draw air into the lungs, simulating breathing. This method does not require an...
Mechanical Ventilation I: Indication and Settings
Mechanical Ventilation III: Noninvasive Ventilation
Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation...
Pneumonia III: Complications and Assessment
Acute Respiratory Failure-V
Ensure that patients are monitored continuously for their response to therapy, including changes in...

