Zero-flow pressure (Pzf) was significantly higher than mean circulatory filling pressure (MCFP) by a mean difference of 15.1 mmHg, demonstrating that Pzf does not equal MCFP.
Meta-Analysis (n=311)
The modified arterial reservoir model provides a mathematical framework for estimating reservoir pressure and demonstrates that zero-flow pressure differs from mean circulatory filling pressure.
Estimación del efecto: Mean difference 15.1 mmHg (95% CI 12.0-18.3)
Tasa de eventos absoluta: 26.5% vs 10.6%
valor p: p=<0.001
Abstract This article describes the modified arterial reservoir in detail. The modified arterial reservoir makes explicit the wave nature of both reservoir ( P res ) and excess pressure ( P xs ). The mathematical derivation and methods for estimating P res in the absence of flow velocity data are described. There is also discussion of zero-flow pressure ( P zf ), the pressure at which flow through the circulation ceases; its relationship to asymptotic pressure ( P ∞ ) estimated by the reservoir model; and the physiological interpretation of P zf . A systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that P zf differs from mean circulatory filling pressure.
Hughes et al. (Mon,) conducted a meta-analysis in Hemodynamics (n=311). Zero-flow pressure (Pzf) measurement vs. Mean circulatory filling pressure (MCFP) measurement was evaluated on Difference between Pzf and MCFP (Mean difference 15.1 mmHg, 95% CI 12.0-18.3, p=<0.001). Zero-flow pressure (Pzf) was significantly higher than mean circulatory filling pressure (MCFP) by a mean difference of 15.1 mmHg, demonstrating that Pzf does not equal MCFP.