Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41236566›Full record

GuidelineIntensive care medicine2025

ESICM guidelines on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring 2025.

Xavier Monnet, Antonio Messina, Massimiliano Greco, Jan Bakker, Nadia Aissaoui, Maurizio Cecconi, Giacomo Coppalini, Daniel De Backer, Vanina Kanoore Edul, Laura Evans and 17 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Intensive care medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 65 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing 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.

NCT07453901 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

The Multicentre Prospective Observational Study on the Management of Septic Shock (Observational Study on Septic Shock, the OSS Study)

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorBicetre HospitalRan2026 to 2028Enrolled5,000ConditionsSeptic Shock
NCT07597291 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Cardiovascular Outcomes Registry in Cardiogenic SHOCK

TypeobservationalSponsorHospital de Santa Cruz, PortugalRan2026 to 2036Enrolled800ConditionsCardiogenic Shock Acute, Cardiogenic Shock, Cardiogenic Shock Post Myocardial Infarction
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. ARDS management in trauma patients.Intensive care medicine · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Hour-1 Sepsis Bundle: Updated Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Review
  16. Cardiac Surgery Management in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

27 authors.

Xavier MonnetUniversité Paris-Saclay, Faculté de Médecine, Service de médecine intensive-réanimation, Hôpital de Bicêtre, AP-HP, DMU 4 CORREVE Maladies du cœur et des vaisseaux, IHU SEPSIS, Groupe de recherche clinique CARMAS, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. xavier.monnet@aphp.fr.ORCID 0000-0001-6820-2678
Antonio MessinaIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy.
Massimiliano GrecoIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy.
Jan BakkerDepartment of Intensive Care Adults, Erasmus MC University Medical, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Nadia AissaouiDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Européen Georges Pompidou, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Maurizio CecconiIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy.
Giacomo CoppaliniIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy.
Daniel De BackerDepartment of Intensive Care, CHIREC Hospitals, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Vanina Kanoore EdulDivisión Terapia Intensiva, Hospital General de Agudos "Juan A. Fernández", Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Laura EvansDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Glenn HernándezDepartamento de Medicina Intensiva, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Oliver HunsickerDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine CCM/CVK, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Can InceDepartment of Intensive Care Adults, Erasmus MC University Medical, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Thomas KaufmannDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Bruno LevyMedical Intensive Care Unit Brabois, INSERM U1116, Institut Lorrain du Cœur et des Vaisseaux, CHRU de Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France.
Manu L N G MalbrainFirst Department Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland.
Alexandre MebazaaDépartement d'Anesthésie-Réanimation Saint Louis Lariboisière, Université Paris Cité, Inserm-MASCOT, APHP, Paris, France.
Sheila Nainan MyatraDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, 400012, India.
Marlies OstermannDepartment of Intensive Care, King's College London, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.
Michael R PinskyDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Bernd SaugelDepartment of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Marzia SaviIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy.
Mervyn SingerBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Jean-Louis TeboulUniversité Paris-Saclay, Faculté de Médecine, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Antoine Vieillard-BaronMedical and Surgical Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Ambroise Paré, APHP, UMR 1018, UVSQ, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Jean-Louis VincentDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Michelle S ChewDepartment of Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThese European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) guidelines provide recommendations for the diagnosis of shock and hemodynamic monitoring for adult critically ill patients.

methodsAn international panel of experts formulated PICO-formatted questions, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was applied to assess evidence and formulate recommendations. In the absence of strong evidence, panelists issued ungraded good practice statements (UGPS).

resultsPanelists issued 50 statements. Among others, skin perfusion should be monitored using the assessment of capillary refill time, and this may be complemented by the assessment of skin temperature and mottling (UGPS). In patients with a central venous catheter, serial measurements of (central) venous oxygen saturation and of the veno-arterial difference in carbon dioxide partial pressure should be performed (UGPS). In patients with persistent shock after initial fluid resuscitation, fluid responsiveness should be assessed before continuing fluid resuscitation (UGPS). It is recommended to use dynamic variables over static markers of preload for predicting fluid responsiveness, when applicable (graded statement). Cardiac output (CO) and/or stroke volume should be monitored in patients who do not respond to initial therapy (UGPS). Arterial pressure should be monitored with an arterial catheter in shock that is not responsive to initial therapy and/or requiring vasopressor infusion (UGPS), and central venous pressure should be measured in patients who have a central venous catheter (UGPS). Panelists suggest using echocardiography as the first-line imaging modality to assess the type of shock (graded statement). Echocardiographically defined phenotypes of left and right ventricular dysfunction may be of prognostic significance (UGPS).

conclusionsThe panel made 50 recommendations on shock diagnosis and hemodynamic monitoring.

Indexed as

Hemodynamic MonitoringShockCritical CareCritical IllnessEuropeHemodynamicsHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicAcute circulatory failureArterial pressureCapillary refill timeCardiac outputCentral venous pressureEchocardiographyFluid responsivenessFluid therapyIntra-abdominal pressureLactateMicrocirculationPractice guidelinesVasopressorsVenous oxygenation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.