Kataria S, Vinjamuri S, Juneja D, Goel S. Venous dimension of shock: Integrating arterial inflow and venous back-pressure in hemodynamic assessment. World J Crit Care Med 2026; 15(3): 122632 [DOI: 10.5492/wjccm.122632]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Deven Juneja, MD, Institute of Critical Care Medicine, Max Super Speciality Hospital, Saket, 1 Press Enclave Road, New Delhi 110017, Delhi, India. devenjuneja@gmail.com
Research Domain of This Article
Critical Care Medicine
Article-Type of This Article
review-article
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA
Share the Article
Kataria S, Vinjamuri S, Juneja D, Goel S. Venous dimension of shock: Integrating arterial inflow and venous back-pressure in hemodynamic assessment. World J Crit Care Med 2026; 15(3): 122632 [DOI: 10.5492/wjccm.122632]
Sahil Kataria, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi 110025, Delhi, India
Saketh Vinjamuri, Department of General Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad 500003, Telangāna, India
Deven Juneja, Institute of Critical Care Medicine, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi 110017, Delhi, India
Sargam Goel, Department of Anaesthesiology, ESI Hospital, Okhla, New Delhi 110020, Delhi, India
Co-corresponding authors: Sahil Kataria and Deven Juneja.
Author contributions: Kataria S conceived and conceptualized the study, performed the primary literature review, drafted the manuscript, prepared all images; Vinjamuri S and Goel S contributed to literature review and manuscript refinement; Juneja D contributed to conceptualization, critical intellectual input, substantial manuscript revision, and overall supervision of the work; and all authors approved the final manuscript. Kataria S conceived and conceptualized the study, conducted the primary literature review, drafted the manuscript, and prepared all images. Juneja D contributed to conceptualization, critical intellectual input, substantial manuscript revision, and overall supervision of the work. Both Kataria S and Juneja D have played crucial and indispensable roles in conceptualizing the manuscript, literature synthesis and interpretation, and manuscript preparation. They have made vital contributions towards the completion of the project and thus qualify as the co-corresponding authors.
AI contribution statement: The authors used Grammarly AI tool for language polishing, grammar correction, and improvement of readability during manuscript preparation.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Corresponding author: Deven Juneja, MD, Institute of Critical Care Medicine, Max Super Speciality Hospital, Saket, 1 Press Enclave Road, New Delhi 110017, Delhi, India. devenjuneja@gmail.com
Received: April 24, 2026 Revised: June 12, 2026 Accepted: June 25, 2026 Published online: September 9, 2026 Processing time: 120 Days and 6.5 Hours
Abstract
Critical care hemodynamics has long been centered on arterial pressure, cardiac output, and systemic vascular resistance. While these variables remain fundamental, organ perfusion is determined not only by arterial inflow but also by the pressure opposing venous outflow at the microcirculatory level. Emerging clinical and physiological evidence indicates that elevated venous pressure may contribute to organ dysfunction even when arterial pressure appears adequate. Effective organ perfusion reflects the balance between arterial driving pressure and venous outflow pressure, further modified by microcirculatory factors such as capillary density, flow heterogeneity, and cellular oxygen utilization, which are usually inferred at the bedside rather than directly measured. Consequently, abnormal tissue perfusion may arise from reduced arterial inflow, elevated venous pressure, microcirculatory dysfunction, or a combination of these mechanisms. In this narrative review, we present the arterial-venous perfusion gradient as a pragmatic clinical synthesis that reintegrates established venous physiology into bedside hemodynamic interpretation. The review examines the physiological determinants of venous return, the consequences of venous congestion for organ function, and the clinical conditions in which elevated venous pressure contributes to organ injury. Particular attention is given to the effects of venous congestion on renal, hepatic, splanchnic, cerebral, and right-heart function, alongside bedside tools for evaluating venous hemodynamics, including point-of-care ultrasound, venous Doppler assessment, and ultrasound-based congestion scoring. We also propose a phenotype-based bedside approach for integrating arterial pressure, forward flow, venous congestion, and tissue perfusion during shock assessment and management. Recognizing discordant hemodynamic states may help clinicians identify patients whose organ dysfunction stems from elevated venous back-pressure or persistent microcirculatory impairment, rather than from impaired arterial inflow alone.
Core Tip: Venous congestion is an underrecognized cause of organ hypoperfusion in critical illness. This review highlights how elevated venous pressure can reduce organ perfusion despite apparently preserved arterial hemodynamics. The arterial-venous perfusion gradient is presented as a pragmatic clinical synthesis of established physiology, providing a bedside framework to interpret arterial inflow, venous outflow, and tissue perfusion together during shock assessment and resuscitation.