Hemodynamic monitoring in shock and implications for management |
| |
| Authors: | Massimo Antonelli Mitchell Levy Peter J D Andrews Jean Chastre Leonard D Hudson Constantine Manthous G Umberto Meduri Rui P Moreno Christian Putensen Thomas Stewart Antoni Torres |
| |
| Institution: | (1) Istituto di Anestesiologia e Rianimazione, Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168 Rome, Italy;(2) Rhode Island Hospital & Brown University, Providence, RI, USA;(3) University of Edinburgh & Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK;(4) Hopital Pitié Salpétrière, Paris, France;(5) Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, OR, USA;(6) Bridgeport Hospital, Bridgeport, CT, USA;(7) University of Tennessee HSC, Memphis, TN, USA;(8) Hospital de St. António dos Capuchos, Lisbon, Portugal;(9) Operative Intensivmedizin, Klinik und Poliklinik fuer Anaesthesiologie und operative Intensivmedizin, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany;(10) Critical Care Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada;(11) Servei de Pneumologia i Allèrgia Respiratòria, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain |
| |
| Abstract: | Objective Shock is a severe syndrome resulting in multiple organ dysfunction and a high mortality rate. The goal of this consensus statement is to provide recommendations regarding the monitoring and management of the critically ill patient with shock. Methods An international consensus conference was held in April 2006 to develop recommendations for hemodynamic monitoring and implications for management of patients with shock. Evidence-based recommendations were developed, after conferring with experts and reviewing the pertinent literature, by a jury of 11 persons representing five critical care societies. Data synthesis A total of 17 recommendations were developed to provide guidance to intensive care physicians monitoring and caring for the patient with shock. Topics addressed were as follows: (1) What are the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic features of shock in the ICU? (2) Should we monitor preload and fluid responsiveness in shock? (3) How and when should we monitor stroke volume or cardiac output in shock? (4) What markers of the regional and micro-circulation can be monitored, and how can cellular function be assessed in shock? (5) What is the evidence for using hemodynamic monitoring to direct therapy in shock? One of the most important recommendations was that hypotension is not required to define shock, and as a result, importance is assigned to the presence of inadequate tissue perfusion on physical examination. Given the current evidence, the only bio-marker recommended for diagnosis or staging of shock is blood lactate. The jury also recommended against the routine use of (1) the pulmonary artery catheter in shock and (2) static preload measurements used alone to predict fluid responsiveness. Conclusions This consensus statement provides 17 different recommendations pertaining to the monitoring and caring of patients with shock. There were some important questions that could not be fully addressed using an evidence-based approach, and areas needing further research were identified. |
| |
| Keywords: | Shock Hemodynamic monitoring ScvO2 Lactate Pulmonary artery catheter Fluid responsiveness |
| 本文献已被 PubMed SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
