Role of the Venous Return in Critical Illness and Shock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide a conceptual and clinical review of the physiology of the venous system as it is related to cardiac function in health and disease. DATA: An integration of venous and cardiac physiology under normal conditions, critical illness, and resuscitation. SUMMARY: The usual clinical teaching of cardiac physiology focuses on left ventricular pathophysiology and pathology. Due to the wide array of shock states dealt with by intensivists, an integrated approach that takes into account the function of the venous system and its interaction with the right heart may be more useful. In part II of this two-part review, we describe the physiology of venous return and its interaction with the right heart function as it relates to mechanical ventilation and various shock states including hypovolemic, cardiogenic, obstructive, and septic shock. In particular, we demonstrate how these shock states perturb venous return/right heart interactions. We also show how compensatory mechanisms and therapeutic interventions can tend to return venous return and cardiac output to appropriate values. CONCLUSION: An improved understanding of the role of the venous system in pathophysiologic conditions will allow intensivists to better appreciate the complex circulatory physiology of shock and related therapies. This should enable improved hemodynamic management of this disorder.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".