Table 5.
Literature overview of publications concerning FVP measurements.
| Study Type/Model | Author Year [Ref.] |
Measure Methods | Methods–Statistics | No of Subjects Enrolled (No. of Paired Measures) |
IAP Range (mmHg) | Comparisons | Results | Conclusion | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correlation Coefficient | WSACS Method Validation Criteria | |||||||||||||
| Bias (mmHg) | Precision (mmHg) | LOA (mmHg) | PE (%) |
|||||||||||
| in-vivo | Animals | Lacey 1987 [22] |
IVCP (FVP) IVP IGP |
Correlation coefficient (unspecified) |
17 rabbits (n.a.) |
0–30 | IAP versus IVCP (FVP) IAP versus IVP IAP versus IGP |
>0.87 >0.85 0.7 |
n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | FVP usable | |
| Gudmundsson 2002 [11] |
FVP IVCP IVP |
Correlation coefficient (unspecified) |
8 pigs (n.a.) |
15–40 | IAP versus FVP IAP versus IVCP IAP versus IVP |
0.95 0.94 0.92 |
n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | FVP usable | |||
| Jakob 2010 [23] |
IGP IVP IVCP (FVP) |
Pearson correlation coefficient (r²) Bias LOA |
12 pigs (n.a.) |
0–22 | IGP versus IVP IGP versus IVCP IVP versus IVCP |
0.60 0.63 0.52 |
n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | FVP limited usable | |||
| Regli 2010 [24] |
FVP IVP |
Correlation coefficient (r²) Bias, precision |
13 pigs (n.a.) |
3–26 | IVP versus FVP | 0.89 | 5.0 | 3.8 | n.a. | n.a. | FVP limited usable | |||
| Human | Adults | Joynt 1996 [12] |
SVCP IVCP (FVP) |
Bias precision LOA |
19 (133) |
1–26 | SVCP versus IVCP | n.a. | 0.45 | 0.89 | −1.33 to 2.23 | n.a. | FVP usable | |
| Ho 1998 [13] |
SVCP IVCP |
Bias, precision LOA |
20 (140) |
n.a. | SVCP versus IVCP | n.a. | 0.1 | 1.06 | −2.04 to 2.2 | n.a. | FVP usable | |||
| Markou 2004 [25] |
IVCP (FVP) IVP |
Pearson correlation coefficient | 38 (151) |
n.a. | IVP versus IVCP 1. IAP < 10 mmHg 2. IAP 10–15 mmHg 3. IAP > 15 mmHg |
0.76 0.69 0.78 |
n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | FVP not usable | |||
| De Keulenaer 2011 [26] |
IVP FVP |
Bias, precision LOA |
149 (866) |
6.7–22.4 | IVP versus FVP 1. pooled IAP 2. IAP ≥ 12mmHg 2. IAP > 20 mmHg |
n.a. |
−1.5 0.4 0.7 |
3.6 3.9 2 |
−8.6 to 5.7 −8.1 to 7.3 −3 to 4.6 |
n.a. | FVP not usable | |||
| Howard 2016 [31] |
IVP FVP |
All WSACS method validation criteria | 11 (53) |
0–25 | IVP versus FVP pooled without weight artificially increased IAP 5 kg artificially increased IAP 10 kg |
0.8 n.a. n.a. n.a. |
2.8 3.2 2.5 2.5 |
3.42 3.63 3.92 2.26 |
−4.1 to 9.6 −4.1 to 10.4 −5.4 to 10.3 −2.1 to 7 |
46.8 n.a. n.a. 27.1 |
FVP not usable | |||
| Children | Present study | FVP IVP IGP |
All WSACS method validation criteria | 39 (1119) |
1–23 | FVP versus IVP FVP versus IGP |
0.14 0.13 |
0.5 −0.8 |
4.2 4.4 |
−7.9 to 8.9 −9.6 to 8.0 |
133 117 |
FVP not usable | ||
The publications were subdivided according to study models. The last column contains the conclusion regarding the usefulness of the FVP method (color-coded according to the traffic light system). Abbreviations: FVP: femoral vein pressure; IAP: intra-abdominal pressure; IGP: intra-gastric pressure; IVCP: inferior vena cava pressure; IVP: intra-vesical pressure (bladder pressure); r2 degree of certainty (correlation coefficient); SVCP: superior vena cava pressure; bias: mean difference between 2 measures; precision: SD of the bias; LOA: limits of agreement; percentage error: Quotient of LOA and mean IAP.