BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Minireviews
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Nephrol. Mar 25, 2026; 15(1): 113474
Published online Mar 25, 2026. doi: 10.5527/wjn.v15.i1.113474
Table 2 Intraoperative hemodynamic monitoring to assess fluid responsiveness
Hemodynamic indices
Advantages and targets
Limitations
Central venous pressureRelatively cheap, measures right atrial pressure to predict volume status 1-2 kPa, upper and lower limits vary among institutionsStatic parameter, complications associated with central venous cannulation (injury to major vessels, haematoma, and infection, etc.), erroneous results in PAH, valvular heart disease, and pulmonary disease, etc., poorly predict volume status. No benefit in post-transplant renal function recovery
Pulse pressure variation/stroke volume variation Dynamic indices, minimally invasive, easy to interpret, and high accuracy. Decreased incidence of DGF in postoperative periods. 6%-15% varies among institutionsConfounding factors: Low tidal volume (< 8 mL/kg), spontaneous ventilation, high PEEP, and arrhythmias
Stroke volumeDynamic index, minimally invasive, easy to interpret, and more accurate. Reduced incidence of DGF in postoperative periods% change in stroke volume (</> 10%)Confounding factors: Low tidal volume (< 8 mL/kg), spontaneous ventilation, high PEEP, and arrhythmias
Transoesophageal DopplerDynamic index, non-invasive, continuous, real-time, and more accurate reduces requirements of intraoperative fluids along with fluid-related complications (tissue edema, dyspnoea)Equipment cost, operator dependent, requires training, risk of oesophageal injury
Invasive blood pressureBeat-to-beat monitoring of arterial pressure, post reperfusion MAP ≥ 11 kPa, varies among institutionsDifficult arterial line placement due to AV fistula or objected by treating physicians, risk of infection, hematoma, etc. No specified targets, depends on donor and recipient’s characteristics (age, co-morbidities, and type of donation)


Write to the Help Desk