Explore the vast range of titles available.

Keywords: Anemia, Blood transfusion, Hemodilution, Hemoglobin, Fluid administration, Goal-directed therapy

The transpulmonary thermodilution technique (TPTD) is a safe, multi-parametric advanced cardiopulmonary monitoring technique that provides important parameters required for making decisions in critically ill patients. The TPTD provides more reliable indicators of preload than filling pressures, the unique measurement of extravascular lung water (EVLW) and comparable accuracy in measuring cardiac output (CO). Intermittent measurement of the CO by TPTD when coupled with pulse contour analysis, offer automatic calibration of continuous CO, as well as accurate assessment of volumetric preload, fluid responsiveness and EVLW. TPTD-guided algorithms have been shown to improve the management of high-risk surgical and critically ill patients.

Optimal fluid management is one of the main challenges in the care of the critically ill. However, the physiological parameters that are commonly monitored and used to guide fluid management are often inadequate and even misleading. From 1987 to 1989 we published four experimental studies which described a method for predicting the response of the cardiac output to fluid administration during mechanical ventilation. The method is based on the analysis of the variations in the arterial pressure in response to a mechanical breath, which serves as a repetitive hemodynamic challenge. Our studies showed that the systolic pressure variation and its components are able to reflect even small changes in the circulating blood volume. Moreover, these dynamic parameters provide information about the slope of the left ventricular function curve, and therefore predict the response to fluid administration better than static preload parameters. Many new dynamic parameters have been introduced since then, including the pulse pressure (PPV) and stroke volume (SVV) variations, and various echocardiographic and other parameters. Though seemingly different, all these parameters are based on measuring the response to a predefined preload-modifying maneuver. The clinical usefulness of these ‘dynamic’ parameters is limited by many confounding factors, the recognition of which is absolutely necessary for their proper use. With more than 20 years of hindsight we believe that our early studies helped pave the way for the recognition that fluid administration should ideally be preceded by the assessment of “fluid responsiveness”. The introduction of dynamic parameters into clinical practice can therefore be viewed as a significant step towards a more rational approach to fluid management.

Over the last decade, the way to monitor hemodynamics at the bedside has evolved considerably in the intensive care unit as well as in the operating room. The most important evolution has been the declining use of the pulmonary artery catheter along with the growing use of echocardiography and of continuous, real-time, minimally or totally non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring techniques. This article, which is the result of an agreement between authors belonging to the Cardiovascular Dynamics Section of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, discusses the advantages and limits of using such techniques with an emphasis on their respective place in the hemodynamic management of critically ill patients with hemodynamic instability.

A significant number of surgical patients are at risk of intra- or post-operative complications or both, which are associated with increased lengths of stay, costs, and mortality. Reducing these risks is important for the individual patient but also for health-care planners and managers. Insufficient tissue perfusion and cellular oxygenation due to hypovolemia, heart dysfunction or both is one of the leading causes of perioperative complications. Adequate perioperative management guided by effective and timely hemodynamic monitoring can help reduce the risk of complications and thus potentially improve outcomes. In this review, we describe the various available hemodynamic monitoring systems and how they can best be used to guide cardiovascular and fluid management in the perioperative period in high-risk surgical patients.

While the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) is still interesting in specific situations, there are many alternatives. A group of experts from different backgrounds discusses their respective interests and limitations of the various techniques and related measured variables. The goal of this review is to highlight the conditions in which the alternative devices will suffice and when they will not or when these alternative techniques can provide information not available with PAC. The panel concluded that it is useful to combine different techniques instead of relying on a single one and to adapt the “package” of interventions to the condition of the patient. As a first step, the clinical and biologic signs should be used to identify patients with impaired tissue perfusion. Whenever available, echocardiography should be performed as it provides a rapid and comprehensive hemodynamic evaluation. If the patient responds rapidly to therapy, either no additional monitoring or pulse wave analysis (allowing continuous monitoring in case potential degradation is anticipated) can be applied. If the patient does not rapidly respond to therapy or complex hemodynamic alterations are observed, pulse wave analysis coupled with TPTD is suggested.

The classic technique of FM holding (in right-handed persons), which is described in most textbooks and manuals, is comprised of the following finger positioning (Fig. 1): a. The small finger (finger 5) of the left hand is placed on the left mandibular angle pressing forward and upwards. b. The thumb (finger 1) is then placed against the superior, narrow part of the FM that covers the patient's nose, just above the insertion point of the breathing system connector into the FM, and pressed downward. c. The index finger is placed on the left lower quadrant of the FM, pressing downward. d. Finger 3 is placed either on the FM pressing downward or on the chin, with its tip pressing upward. e. The tip of finger 4 is placed on the chin, pressing upward.

Hemodynamic instability frequently occurs in critically ill patients. Pathophysiological rationale suggests that hemodynamic monitoring (HM) may identify the presence and causes of hemodynamic instability and therefore may allow targeting therapeutic approaches. However, there is a discrepancy between this pathophysiological rationale to use HM and a paucity of formal evidence (as defined by the strict criteria of evidence-based medicine (EBM)) for its use. In this editorial, we discuss that this paucity of formal evidence that HM can improve patient outcome may be explained by both the shortcomings of the EBM methodology in the field of intensive care medicine and the shortcomings of HM itself.