SynthesisJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
Hemodynamic monitoring strategies in cardiac surgery: an update systematic review.
Synthesis 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 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.
- Near-infrared spectroscopy for estimating mixed venous oxygen saturation and cardiac output during off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: a prospective observational study.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Article
- Usability of a Patch-Type Ultrasound System for Non-Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring: A Simulation Study in Anesthesiologists.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hemodynamic monitoring is a cornerstone of perioperative care in cardiac surgery, where patients are at high risk of cardiovascular instability and organ hypoperfusion. In recent years, goal-directed therapy (GDT) protocols have increasingly incorporated advanced monitoring technologies to optimize perfusion and improve outcomes. This systematic review aims to critically appraise contemporary hemodynamic monitoring strategies and their integration into GDT protocols in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery. A systematic review of studies published between January 2015 and May 2025 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The last search was conducted on 17 May 2025 in all databases. Eligible studies included adult cardiac surgical patients managed with perioperative hemodynamic monitoring strategies that incorporated cardiac output assessment and structured GDT protocols. A qualitative synthesis of monitoring modalities, targeted hemodynamic endpoints, and reported clinical outcomes was performed. Our analysis included 15 studies comprising 4,224 patients. Monitoring strategies ranged from pulmonary artery catheters to minimally invasive and noninvasive tools such as FloTrac/EV1000 and esophageal Doppler. Cardiac index and stroke volume variation were the most frequently targeted parameters, often in combination with perfusion markers such as mean arterial pressure or central venous oxygen saturation. GDT protocols were associated with reductions in AKI, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU/hospital stay. Mortality benefits were inconsistently reported and not predefined in most studies. Current evidence supports the physiological rationale for GDT guided by advanced hemodynamic monitoring in cardiac surgery. Nonetheless, substantial heterogeneity in strategies and outcomes highlights the need for standardized protocols and high-quality multicenter trials to determine the most effective, patient-centered approaches.Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD420251102582, retrospectively registered on 11 July 2025.
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.