Background
Balan and colleagues have published an intriguing, post-hoc investigation of patients following elective coronary artery bypass grafting in Annals of Intensive Care [1]. They studied the interaction between a Doppler ultrasound marker of venous congestion (portal vein pulsatility index, PVPI), echocardiographic measures of right ventricular (RV) function and a surrogate of volume state, the mean systemic pressure analogue (PMSA). Included patients had no venous congestion (i.e., PVPI < 50%) at baseline. The experimental protocol is shown in Fig. 1A and 65% were preload responsive (PR) while 35% were preload unresponsive (PUR).
Fig. 1.
A Experimental protocol. Preload responsive patients were defined by a ≥ 12% increase in left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (LVOT VTI) during passive leg raise (PLR). Right ventricular (RV) parameters studied were 1. RV to left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic area ratio (RVEDA/LVEDA), 2. tricuspid lateral annular systolic velocity (RV S’), 3. RV fractional area change (RVFAC), 4. pulmonary acceleration time (PAT) and 5. right myocardial performance index (RIMP). B The Geometrical model showing effect of change in PMSF on operating point (OP1 to OP2) between a preload responsive (left) and unresponsive (right) patient. PRA−plat is the right atrial pressure at which the cardiac function curve plateaus C Using Eqs. 1 and 2, this is a graphical simulation showing effect of increasing PMSF on PRA (i.e., PVPI) between preload responsive and unresponsive patients assuming an RVR:RCARDIAC ratio of 2.5 and PRA−plat of 2 mmHg. PVPI portal vein pulsatility index; LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction; PMSA mean systemic pressure analogue; PMSF mean systemic filling pressure; Q is blood flow in liters per minute; mmHg millimeters of mercury; LR Lactated Ringer’s solution
At baseline (T1), multivariable regression found that three measures of RV function (RVEDA/LVEDA, RV S’ and RIMP) associated with PVPI while PMSA did not. However, for all patients across T1-T3 there was a significant correlation between PMSA and PVPI. Lastly, in the subset of PR patients studied at T1, T4 and T5, PMSA associated with PVPI as did the three significant RV parameters from T1.
We think that a recently proposed ‘Geometrical model’ of the circulation elaborates the findings of Balan and colleagues [2, 3]. We argue that (1) there are subtle mathematical differences in the PMSA-to-PVPI relation in preload responsive versus unresponsive patients and that (2) the ratio between the resistance to venous return (RVR) and cardiac function (i.e., cardiac resistance, RCARDIAC) as a measure of ‘veno-cardiac coupling’ modulates the relation between PVPI and PMSA.
Synopsis of geometrical model
The Geometrical model reaffirms Guyton’s own words [4] that: “… right atrial pressure is not one of the primary determinants of cardiac output but, instead, is itself determined simultaneously along with cardiac output.” What, then, are the independent variables that determine right atrial pressure (PRA) and blood flow (Q)? The Geometrical model proposes that there are four: 1. The mean systemic filling pressure (PMSF), 2.) the resistance to venous return (RVR), 3.) the pressure surrounding the right atrium (i.e., the pericardial pressure, PPC), and 4.) cardiac resistance (RCARDIAC). Furthermore, the model specifies that the independent variables alter the PRA and Q by different magnitudes contingent upon whether the patient is PR or PUR (Fig. 1B).
Because the Geometrical model asserts that both Q and PRA are concurrently determined by the system of independent variables above, the model reconciles debate between the experimental approaches of Guyton and Levy [5]. Guyton altered the height of a collapsible tube, effectively using gravity to change the transmural pressure of the right atrium, analogous to changing the PPC; then he varied pump function (RCARDIAC) to return the tube wall to a trans-mural pressure of approximately zero, in which state the height of the collapsed tube was equivalent to the PRA. With this, Guyton iteratively generated a series of unique PRA-Q relationships plotted as a venous return curve. Levy, on the other hand, changed only RCARDIAC to produce PRA-Q relationships. Regardless, neither PRA nor Q in either experiment were independent variables.
Geometrical model and venous congestion
The Geometrical model can be solved for PRA. To better understand the findings of Balan et al., and to simplify the analysis, we set PPC to atmospheric pressure such that PRA is the right atrial transmural pressure as a surrogate for PVPI. This is reasonable because increasing PVPI is partly due to greater retrograde a-waves at end-diastole, reflecting right atrial congestion into the hepatic circulation. Different equations apply for the PR and PUR states (1 and 2 respectively; see Appendix).
![]() |
1 |
![]() |
2 |
First, there is a direct relationship between PMSF (or PMSA) and PVPI, but also an indirect relationship between PVPI and the ratio of the RVR to RCARDIAC. Decreasing RVR and/or increasing the RCARDIAC raises PRA (and therefore PVPI) for any given PMSF (and vice versa). The RVR:RCARDIAC ratio is analogous to ventriculoarterial coupling (i.e., the EA:EES ratio) and could partly explain the lack of association between PVPI and PMSA at baseline. Consequently, the PVPI-PMSA relationship must be understood in terms of ‘veno-cardiac coupling’.
Second, in PR patients, the RVR:RCARDIAC ratio is the multiplicative inverse of PVPI while in PUR patients the ratio is the arithmetic inverse. Thus, when PMSF is increased (e.g., during PLR or crystalloid infusion) the PVPI (and therefore PRA) is predicted to change more in PUR patients (Fig. 1C); conceptually this is because the venous return curve shifts right along a flat portion of the cardiac function curve (Fig. 1B).
Limitations and conclusions
The transmural PRA, by itself, does not fully explain PVPI. Retrograde a-waves reflected into the hepatic and portal venous systems due to right atrial congestion is one determinant. Additionally, vascular compliance, valve function, damping properties of the hepatic venous outflow, organ compliance, perihepatic pressure, autonomic tone and reflexes such as the hepatic buffer arterial response also mediate this dynamic, waveform-based index.
We congratulate Balan and colleagues for their excellent work linking venous congestion, preload responsiveness and Guytonian principles. Though hypothesis-generating, the simplified Geometrical model connecting venous return (PMSF, RVR) and cardiac function (PPC, RCARDIAC) helps predict PRA and, theoretically, venous Doppler patterns. Increased RCARDIAC (i.e., impaired cardiac function) augments PRA at any volume state (i.e., PMSF); this relationship is amplified when the patient is preload unresponsive. While not perfectly related, rising PRA contributes to venous congestion and PVPI. We believe that the ability to distinguish dependent (e.g., PRA) from independent (e.g., RCARDIAC) hemodynamic variables is relevant for proper bedside therapeutic decision-making.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Abbreviations
- PVPI
Portal vein pulsatility index
- RV
Right ventricle
- PMSA
Mean systemic pressure analogue
- PR
Preload responsive
- PUR
Preload unresponsive
- T1–5
Time 1–5
- RVEDA
Right ventricular end diastolic area
- LVEDA
Left ventricular end diastolic area
- RV S’
Tricuspid lateral annular systolic velocity
- RVFAC
RV fractional area change
- PAT
Pulmonary acceleration time
- RIMP
Right myocardial performance index
- LVOT VTI
Left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral
- LVEF
Left ventricular ejection fraction
- LR
Lactated Ringer's solution
- OP
Operating point
- RVR
Resistance to venous return
- RCARDIAC
Cardiac resistance or cardiac function
- PRA
Right atrial pressure
- Q
Blood flow - cardiac output or venous return
- PMSF
Mean systemic filling pressure
- PPC
Pericardial pressure
- PRA−plat
Right atrial pressure when cardiac function curve forms plateau (i.e., flattens)
- EA:EES
Arterial elastance to end-systolic elastance
- PLR
Passive leg raise
Appendix
These equations assume two adjacent right triangles [2]: the y-axis is blood flow (Q), the x-axis is pressure (P), and the slope relating flow over pressure is 1/Resistance.
Preload responsive state:
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Preload unresponsive state:
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Authors contributions
JESK initial drafting; PWM critical revisions.
Funding
Not applicable.
Data availability
Not applicable.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
JESK is the co-founder and chief medical officer of Flosonics Medical.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Balan C, Morosanu B, Fodoroiu A, Dobre V, Dumitrache A, Barbulescu RT, et al. Decoding portal vein pulsatility: hemodynamic determinants in a post-hoc analysis of a prospective observational trial. Ann Intensive Care. 2025;15(1):81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kenny J-ES. A framework for heart-lung interaction and its application to prone position in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Front Physiol. 2023;14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 3.Kenny J-ES, Werner Moller P. The meaning of volume responsiveness and its relationship to venous return. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2023;325(6):H1461–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Guyton AC. Determination of cardiac output by equating venous return curves with cardiac response curves. Physiol Rev. 1955;35(1):123–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Levy MN. The cardiac and vascular factors that determine systemic blood flow. Circ Res. 1979;44(6):739–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.













