Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32781167›Full record

ArticleAnaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine2020

Haemodynamic monitoring and management in COVID-19 intensive care patients: an International survey.

Frédéric Michard, Manu Lng Malbrain, Greg S Martin, Thierry Fumeaux, Suzana Lobo, Filipe Gonzalez, Vitor Pinho-Oliveira, Jean-Michel Constantin

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Observational
  4. Comparison of Respiratory and Hemodynamic Parameters of COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 ARDS Patients.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Frédéric MichardMiCo, Denens, Switzerland. Electronic address: frederic.michard@bluewin.ch.
Manu Lng MalbrainIntensive Care Unit, University Hospital Brussel, Jette, Belgium & Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Greg S MartinEmory University and Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, USA.
Thierry FumeauxIntensive Care Unit, Nyon Hospital, Nyon, Switzerland.
Suzana LoboIntensive Care Division, Hospital de Base - FAMERP, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil.
Filipe GonzalezIntensive Care Department, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal.
Vitor Pinho-OliveiraDepartment of Anesthesia, Hospital CUF Viseu, Viseu, Portugal.
Jean-Michel ConstantinDepartment of Anesthesia & Critical Care, La Pitié Salpetriere Hospital, University Paris-Sorbonne, Paris, France.
Centro Hospitalar Tondela-Viseu · PTFaculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto · BRGrady Memorial Hospital · USHospital Garcia de Orta · PTSorbonne Université · FRVrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo survey haemodynamic monitoring and management practices in intensive care patients with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

methodsA questionnaire was shared on social networks or via email by the authors and by Anaesthesia and/or Critical Care societies from France, Switzerland, Belgium, Brazil, and Portugal. Intensivists and anaesthetists involved in COVID-19 ICU care were invited to answer 14 questions about haemodynamic monitoring and management.

resultsGlobally, 1000 questionnaires were available for analysis. Responses came mainly from Europe (n = 460) and America (n = 434). According to a majority of respondents, COVID-19 ICU patients frequently or very frequently received continuous vasopressor support (56%) and had an echocardiography performed (54%). Echocardiography revealed a normal cardiac function, a hyperdynamic state (43%), hypovolaemia (22%), a left ventricular dysfunction (21%) and a right ventricular dilation (20%). Fluid responsiveness was frequently assessed (84%), mainly using echo (62%), and cardiac output was measured in 69%, mostly with echo as well (53%). Venous oxygen saturation was frequently measured (79%), mostly from a CVC blood sample (94%). Tissue perfusion was assessed biologically (93%) and clinically (63%). Pulmonary oedema was detected and quantified mainly using echo (67%) and chest X-ray (61%).

conclusionOur survey confirms that vasopressor support is not uncommon in COVID-19 ICU patients and suggests that different haemodynamic phenotypes may be observed. Ultrasounds were used by many respondents, to assess cardiac function but also to predict fluid responsiveness and quantify pulmonary oedema. Although we observed regional differences, current international guidelines were followed by most respondents.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusHealth Care SurveysHemodynamic MonitoringPandemicsAfricaAmericasAsiaAustraliaCardiotonic AgentsCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Critical CareDisease ManagementEchocardiographyEuropeFluid TherapyCardiotonic AgentsOxygenVasoconstrictor AgentsAcute circulatory failureCOVID-19EchocardiographyHaemodynamicsShock

Identifiers

PMID32781167
PMCPMC7415168
OpenAlexW3047781306

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.