ArticleInternational journal of critical illness and injury science2014
Changing trends of hemodynamic monitoring in ICU - from invasive to non-invasive methods: Are we there yet?
Article in International journal of critical illness and injury science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of minimal-flow sevoflurane versus desflurane anesthesia: randomized clinical trial.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)Trial
- Comparing Cardiac Output Measurements Using a Wearable, Wireless, Noninvasive Photoplethysmography-Based Device to Pulse Contour Cardiac Output in the General ICU: A Brief Report.Critical care explorations · 2022Article
- Near infrared spectroscopy and preterm infants-ready for routine use?Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2017Article
- Comparison of the non-invasive Nexfin® monitor with conventional methods for the measurement of arterial blood pressure in moderate risk orthopaedic surgery patients.The Journal of international medical research · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hemodynamic monitoring in the form of invasive arterial, central venous pressure and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure monitoring may be required in seriously ill Intensive care unit patients, in patients undergoing surgeries involving gross hemodynamic changes and in patients undergoing cardiac surgeries. These techniques are considered the gold standards of hemodynamic monitoring but are associated with their inherent risks. A number of non-invasive techniques based on various physical principles are under investigation at present. The goal is to not only avoid the risk of invasive intervention, but also to match the gold standard set by them as far as possible. Techniques based on photoplethysmography, arterial tonometry and pulse transit time analysis have come up for continuous arterial pressure monitoring. Of these the first has been studied most extensively and validated, however it has been shown to be substandard in patients with gross hemodynamic instability. The other two still need further evaluation. While the non-invasive methods for arterial blood pressure monitoring are based on diverse technologies, those for measurement of central venous and pulmonary pressures are mostly based on imaging techniques such as echocardiography, Doppler ultrasound, computed tomography scan and chest X ray. Most of these techniques are based on measurement of the dimensions of the great veins. This makes them operator and observer dependent. However, studies done till now have revealed adequate inter-observer agreement. These techniques are still in their incipience and although initial studies are encouraging, further research is needed on this front.
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.