Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28593456›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2018

Impact of hemodynamic goal-directed resuscitation on mortality in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Maria Cronhjort, Olof Wall, Erik Nyberg, Ruifeng Zeng, Christer Svensen, Johan Mårtensson, Eva Joelsson-Alm

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Individualized Hemodynamic Management in Sepsis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021
    Review
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Goal-directed therapy: hit early and personalize!Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2018
    Article
  7. Review
  8. 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.

Maria CronhjortDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. maria.cronhjort@sll.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0444-8553
Olof WallDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Erik NybergUnit of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ruifeng ZengThe Second Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital, Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, China.
Christer SvensenDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Johan MårtenssonSection of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.
Eva Joelsson-AlmDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The effect of hemodynamic optimization in critically ill patients has been challenged in recent years. The aim of the meta-analysis was to evaluate if a protocolized intervention based on the result of hemodynamic monitoring reduces mortality in critically ill patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The study was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42015019539). Randomized controlled trials published in English, reporting studies on adult patients treated in an intensive care unit, emergency department or equivalent level of care were included. Interventions had to be protocolized and based on results from hemodynamic measurements, defined as cardiac output, stroke volume, stroke volume variation, oxygen delivery, and central venous-or mixed venous oxygenation. The control group had to be treated without any structured intervention based on the parameters mentioned above, however, monitoring by central venous pressure measurements was allowed. Out of 998 screened papers, thirteen met the inclusion criteria. A total of 3323 patients were enrolled in the six trials with low risk of bias (ROB). The mortality was 22.4% (374/1671 patients) in the intervention group and 22.9% (378/1652 patients) in the control group, OR 0.94 with a 95% CI of 0.73-1.22. We found no statistically significant reduction in mortality from hemodynamic optimization using hemodynamic monitoring in combination with a structured algorithm. The number of high quality trials evaluating the effect of protocolized hemodynamic management directed towards a meaningful treatment goal in critically ill patients in comparison to standard of care treatment is too low to prove or exclude a reduction in mortality.

Indexed as

HemodynamicsIntensive Care UnitsAdultAlgorithmsCardiac OutputCentral Venous PressureCritical CareCritical IllnessGoalsHumansLength of StayMonitoring, PhysiologicOxygenRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResuscitationTreatment OutcomeOxygenCritical careFluid therapyHemodynamic monitoringMeta-analysisMortalityProtocol

Identifiers

PMID28593456
PMCPMC5943381

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.