Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28474097›Full record

ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2018

Advanced hemodynamic monitoring in intensive care medicine : A German web-based survey study.

B Saugel, P C Reese, J Y Wagner, M Buerke, W Huber, S Kluge, R Prondzinsky

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Vasopressors for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2019
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

B SaugelDepartment of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. b.saugel@uke.de.
P C ReeseDepartment of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
J Y WagnerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
M BuerkeMedizinische Klinik II, Kardiologie, Angiologie und Internistische Intensivmedizin, St. Marien-Krankenhaus Siegen, Siegen, Germany.
W HuberII. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany.
S KlugeDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
R ProndzinskyMedizinische Klinik I, Carl von Basedow Klinikum Saalekreis gGmbH, Merseburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DEKlinikum rechts der Isar · DEMalteser Krankenhaus St. Anna · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvanced hemodynamic monitoring is recommended in patients with complex circulatory shock.

objectivesTo evaluate the current attitudes and beliefs among German intensivists, regarding advanced hemodynamic monitoring, the actual hemodynamic management in clinical practice, and the barriers to using it. MATERIALS AND

methodsWeb-based survey among members of the German Society of Medical Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine.

resultsOf 284 respondents, 249 (87%) agreed that further hemodynamic assessment is needed to determine the type of circulatory shock if no clear clinical diagnosis can be made. In all, 281 (99%) agreed that echocardiography is helpful for this purpose (transpulmonary thermodilution: 225 [79%]; pulmonary artery catheterization: 126 [45%]). More than 70% of respondents agreed that blood flow variables (cardiac output, stroke volume) should be measured in patients with hemodynamic instability. The parameters most respondents agreed should be assessed in a patient with hemodynamic instability were mean arterial pressure, cardiac output, and serum lactate. Echocardiography is available in 99% of ICUs (transpulmonary thermodilution: 91%; pulmonary artery catheter: 63%). The respondents stated that, in clinical practice, invasive arterial pressure measurements and serum lactate measurements are performed in more than 90% of patients with hemodynamic instability (cardiac output monitoring in about 50%; transpulmonary thermodilution in about 40%). The respondents did not feel strong barriers to the use of advanced hemodynamic monitoring in clinical practice.

conclusionsThis survey study shows that German intensivists deem advanced hemodynamic assessment necessary for the differential diagnosis of circulatory shock and to guide therapy with fluids, vasopressors, and inotropes in ICU patients.

Indexed as

Critical CareHemodynamic MonitoringPractice Patterns, Physicians'Attitude of Health PersonnelCardiac OutputHemodynamicsHumansInternetMonitoring, PhysiologicSurveys and QuestionnairesThermodilutionCardiovascular dynamicsEchocardiographyFluid responsivenessPulmonary artery catheterTranspulmonary thermodilution

Identifiers

PMID28474097
OpenAlexW2611678285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.