Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23514343›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2013

Supporting hemodynamics: what should we target? What treatments should we use?

Luciano Gattinoni, Eleonora Carlesso

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Validation of lower body negative pressure as an experimental model of hemorrhage.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2014
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luciano GattinoniDipartimento di Anestesia, Rianimazione (Intensiva e Subintensiva) e Terapia del Dolore, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda - Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Francesco Sforza 35, 20122 Milan, Italy. gattinon@policlinico.mi.it
Eleonora Carlesso
University of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessment and monitoring of hemodynamics is a cornerstone in critically ill patients as hemodynamic alteration may become life-threatening in a few minutes. Defining normal values in critically ill patients is not easy, because 'normality' is usually referred to healthy subjects at rest. Defining 'adequate' hemodynamics is easier, which embeds whatever pressure and flow set is sufficient to maintain the aerobic metabolism. We will refer to the unifying hypothesis proposed by Schrier several years ago. Accordingly, the alteration of three independent variables - heart (contractility and rate), vascular tone and intravascular volume - may lead to underfilling of the arterial tree, associated with reduced (as during myocardial infarction or hemorrhage) or expanded (sepsis or cirrhosis) plasma volume. The underfilling is sensed by the arterial baroreceptors, which activate primarily the sympathetic nervous system and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, as well as vasopressin, to restore the arterial filling by increasing the vascular tone and retaining sodium and water. Under 'normal' conditions, therefore, the homeostatic system is not activated and water/sodium excretion, heart rate and oxygen extraction are in the range found in normal subjects. When arterial underfilling occurs, the mechanisms are activated (sodium and water retention) - associated with low central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) if underfilling is caused by low flow/hypovolemia, or with normal/high ScvO2 if associated with high flow/hypervolemia. Although the correction of hemodynamics should be towards the correction of the independent determinants, the usual therapy performed is volume infusion. An accepted target is ScvO2 >70%, although this ignores the arterial underfilling associated with volume expansion/high flow. For large-volume resuscitation the worst solution is normal saline solution (chloride load, strong ion difference = 0, acidosis). To avoid changes in acid-base equilibrium the strong ion difference of the infused solution should be equal to the baseline bicarbonate concentration.

Indexed as

HemodynamicsBlood VolumeCoronary DiseaseCritical CareCritical IllnessHumans

Identifiers

PMID23514343
PMCPMC3603477
OpenAlexW2143652784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.