ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2025
Haemodynamic monitoring and management during non-cardiac surgery: a survey among German anaesthesiologists.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- HOPFIT: A neuro-cardiovascular monitoring framework for precision sedation, anaesthesia, and resuscitation.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Review
- Current practices in hemodynamic monitoring and management during non-cardiac surgery in Austria.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2023, the first German guideline on intraoperative haemodynamic monitoring and management for adults having non-cardiac surgery was published. The aim of this survey was to identify how anaesthetists in Germany managed intraoperative haemodynamics and blood pressure before its publication. In September to October 2023, members of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) were invited via email to participate in this anonymous online survey. Thirty-one questions covered demographics, clinical experience, approaches to perioperative blood pressure measurement and common thresholds, as well as the use of advanced haemodynamic monitoring and its potential therapeutic implications. 1,079 fully completed questionnaires were included in the analysis. When intermittent oscillometry was used to measure blood pressure, a 3-minute interval was usually applied during induction of anaesthesia (42%; 451/1,079). For invasive blood pressure monitoring, more than half (53%; 574/1,079) inserted an arterial line after induction of anaesthesia. Nearly all (94%; 1,012/1,079) focused on the mean arterial pressure for blood pressure monitoring, with a large majority (77%; 779/1012) considering values below 60-65 mmHg to be critically low. Intraoperative hypotension was managed based on an internal protocol by only 21% (223/1,079). Regarding advanced haemodynamic monitoring, 43% (459/1,079) frequently used pulse contour analysis, while 67% (721/1,079) reported that monitors with finger-cuff technology were not available in their department. 47% (504/1,079) cited a lack of experience as one of the main reasons for the infrequent use of cardiac output monitoring. This survey among DGAI members provides important insights into current practices of haemodynamic monitoring and management prior to the publication of the recent German guideline on 'Intraoperative haemodynamic monitoring and management of adults having non-cardiac surgery'.
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.