Peripheral venous pressure predicts central venous pressure poorly in pediatric patients

Purpose Using peripheral venous pressure (PVP) instead of central venous pressure (CVP) as a volume monitor decreases patient risks and costs, and is convenient. This study was undertaken to determine if PVP predicts CVP in pediatric patients. Methods With ethical approval and informed consent, 30 pediatric patients aged neonate to 12 yr requiring a central venous line were studied prospectively in a tertiary care teaching hospital. In the supine position, PVP and CVP were simultaneously transduced. Ninety-six paired recordings of CVP and PVP were made. Correlation and Bland-Altman analysis of agreement of end-expiratory measurements were performed. Results The mean (SD; range) CVP was 10.0 mmHg (6.0; −1.0 to 27.0); the mean PVP was 13.7 mmHg (6.3; 0.0 to 33.0); offset (bias) of PVP > CVP was 3.7 mmHg with SD 2.6. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the bias were 3.2 to 4.1 mmHg. In the Bland-Altman analysis, lower and upper limits of agreement (LOA; CI in parentheses) were −1.5 (−2.3 to −0.7) and 8.8 (8.1 to 9.6) mmHg. Eight of 96 points were outside the limits of agreement. The correlation of PVP on CVP was r = 0.92, P < 0.0001. For a subset of ten patients (20 simultaneous recordings) with iv atheters proximal to the hand, limits of agreement were better — offset: 3.8 mmHg (± 1.4); lower LOA: 1.2 mmHg (0.25 to 2.1); upper LOA: 6.6 mmHg (5.7 to 7.5). Conclusion Peripheral venous pressure measured from an iv catheter in the hand predicts CVP poorly in pediatric patients.