ReviewCurrent opinion in critical care2017
The crashing patient: hemodynamic collapse.
Review in Current opinion in critical care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early initiated noradrenaline versus fluid therapy for hypotension and shock in the emergency department (VASOSHOCK): a protocol for a pragmatic, multi-center, superiority, randomized controlled trial.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Evaluation of parameters used in echocardiography and ultrasound protocol for the diagnosis of shock etiology in emergency setting.BMC emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Measurement of mean systemic filling pressure after severe hemorrhagic shock in swine anesthetized with propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia: implications for vasopressor-free resuscitation.Acute and critical care · 2020Article
- Clinical Approach to the Patient in Critical State Following Immunotherapy and/or Stem Cell Transplantation: Guideline for the On-Call Physician.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- [Hypovolemic and hemorrhagic shock].Der Anaesthesist · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewRapid restoration of tissue perfusion and oxygenation are the main goals in the resuscitation of a patient with circulatory collapse. This review will focus on providing an evidence based framework of the technological and conceptual advances in the evaluation and management of the patient with cardiovascular collapse. RECENT
findingsThe initial approach to the patient in cardiovascular collapse continues to be based on the Ventilate-Infuse-Pump rule. Point of care ultrasound is the preferred modality for the initial evaluation of undifferentiated shock, providing information to narrow the differential diagnosis, to assess fluid responsiveness and to evaluate the response to therapy. After the initial phase of resuscitative fluid administration, which focuses on re-establishing a mean arterial pressure to 65 mmHg, the use of dynamic parameters to assess preload responsiveness such as the passive leg raise test, stroke volume variation, pulse pressure variation and collapsibility of the inferior vena cava in mechanically ventilated patients is recommended. SUMMARY: The crashing patient remains a clinical challenge. Using an integrated approach with bedside ultrasound, dynamic parameters for the evaluation of fluid responsiveness and surrogates of evaluation of tissue perfusion have made the assessment of the patient in shock faster, safer and more physiologic.
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.