Afterload assessment with or without central venous pressure: A preliminary clinical comparison

Glen Atlas, Jay Berger, Sunil Dhar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations


A clinical comparison, of two methods of afterload assessment, has been made. The first method, systemic vascular resistance index (SVRi), is based upon the traditional formula for afterload which utilizes central venous pressure (CVP), as well as cardiac index (Ci), and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP). The second method, total systemic vascular resistance index (TSVRi), also uses MAP and Ci. However, TSVRi ignores the contribution of CVP. This preliminary examination, of 10 randomlyselected ICU patients, has shown a high degree of correlation (ranging from 90 to 100%) between SVRi and TSVRi (P<0.0001). Furthermore, there was also a high degree of correlation (ranging from 94 to 100%) noted between the hour-to-hour change in SVRi with the hour-tohour change in TSVRi (P<0.0001). The results, of this pilot study, support the premise that the use of CVP may not always be necessary for afterload evaluation in the clinical setting. Minimally-invasive means of measuring both Ci and MAP, without CVP, may be adequate for use in assessing afterload.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)246-252
Number of pages7
JournalCardiovascular Engineering
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 2010

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Transplantation


  • Central venous pressure
  • Pulmonary artery occlusion catheter
  • Systemic vascular resistance index
  • Total systemic vascular resistance index


Dive into the research topics of 'Afterload assessment with or without central venous pressure: A preliminary clinical comparison'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this