ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2010
Minimally invasive monitoring of cardiac output in the cardiac surgery intensive care unit.
Review in Current heart failure reports, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02004834 (A Combination of Levobupivacaine and Lidocaine for Paravertebral Block in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Quadrantectomy Causes Greater Hemodynamic Oscillations Than Levobupivacaine Alone), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Combination of Levobupivacaine and Lidocaine for Paravertebral Block in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Quadrantectomy Causes Greater Hemodynamic Oscillations Than Levobupivacaine Alone
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Continuous cardiac output measurement by un-calibrated pulse wave analysis and pulmonary artery catheter in patients with septic shock.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2016Article
- Newer methods of cardiac output monitoring.World journal of cardiology · 2014Review
- Clinical review: Does it matter which hemodynamic monitoring system is used?Critical care (London, England) · 2013Review
- Perioperative fluid and volume management: physiological basis, tools and strategies.Annals of intensive care · 2011Article
- Cardiac output assessed by invasive and minimally invasive techniques.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac output monitoring in the cardiac surgery patient is standard practice that is traditionally performed using the pulmonary artery catheter. However, over the past 20 years, the value of pulmonary artery catheters has been challenged, with some authors suggesting that its use might be not only unnecessary but also harmful. New minimally invasive devices that measure cardiac output have become available. In this paper, we review their operative principles, limitations, and utility in an integrated approach that could potentially change patients' outcome. However, it is now clear that it is how the monitor is used (ie, the protocol or therapy associated with its use, or its lack thereof), and not the monitor per se, that should be questioned when a patient's outcome is being evaluated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.