Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41493520›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026

Hemodynamic monitoring: basic principles in operation room and intensive care unit.

Martin Mirus, Bernd Saugel, Peter M Spieth

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

3 authors.

Martin MirusDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8494-1403
Bernd SaugelDepartment of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Peter M SpiethDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. peter.spieth@ukdd.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3953-3253

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To synthesize physiological principles and practical monitoring strategies for perioperative and intensive care hemodynamics, addressing two questions: which variables should be monitored, and what targets should be pursued to optimize outcomes. The review is educational in scope and highlights instrumentation details and clinical applications.Narrative, physiology-anchored review of oxygen delivery, venous return (VR), and regulation of mean arterial pressure (MAP) as a derived target. Reviews for educational purposes are included, with emphasis on instrumentation principles and clinical use cases. Invasive and non-invasive modalities are compared. Evidence from goal-directed therapy (GDT) trials in operating room and intensive care contexts is summarized to link physiology with therapy.(1) adequacy of oxygen delivery cannot be judged from MAP alone; MAP reflects the interaction of cardiac output (CO), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), and right atrial pressure. (2) VR depends on effective circulating volume, venous compliance, and mean systemic filling pressure. (3) Microcirculatory assessment remains limited; macrocirculatory surrogates and biomarkers provide guidance but have constraints. (4) Device outputs labeled identically are not interchangeable; calibration strategy and physiological assumptions are decisive. (5) GDT improves processes and may benefit selected high-risk patients, but large trials show mixed effects on mortality.Effective hemodynamic management requires physiology-based reasoning: identify the limiting factor, then select monitoring tools and therapeutic targets accordingly. MAP must be interpreted with CO, SVR, and RAP. Individualized, dynamic targets and trend-based responses outperform fixed thresholds. Embedding ultrasound skills, fluid-responsiveness testing, and calibrated device interpretation are levers to translate monitoring into safer care.

Indexed as

Critical CareHemodynamic MonitoringHemodynamicsIntensive Care UnitsMonitoring, IntraoperativeOperating RoomsArterial PressureCardiac OutputHumansMicrocirculationMonitoring, PhysiologicOxygenVascular ResistanceOxygenAnesthesiaCardiac outputGoal directed therapyHemodynamicIntensive care medicineOxygen delivery

Identifiers

PMID41493520
PMCPMC13053478

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.