Why the study?
Closed-loop systems offer more accurate, standardized fluid administration with reduced clinician workload, but an assessment of the technological landscape and available systems was needed.
This scoping review outlines the current landscape of closed-loop fluid administration systems, identifying 10 distinct systems ranging from theoretical models to FDA-approved products.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Outlines spectrum of closed-loop fluid systems from models to approval; leaves open comparative trials before clinical adoption.
Physiological Closed-Loop Controlled systems continue to take a growing part in clinical practice, offering possibilities of providing more accurate, goal-directed care while reducing clinicians' cognitive and task load. These systems also provide a standardized approach for the clinical management of the patient, leading to a reduction in care variability across multiple dimensions. For fluid management and administration, the advantages of closed-loop technology are clear, especially in conditions that require precise care to improve outcomes, such as peri-operative care, trauma, and acute burn care. Controller design varies from simplistic to complex designs, based on detailed physiological models and adaptive properties that account for inter-patient and intra-patient variability; their maturity level ranges from theoretical models tested in silico to commercially available, FDA-approved products. This comprehensive scoping review was conducted in order to assess the current technological landscape of this field, describe the systems currently available or under development, and suggest further advancements that may unfold in the coming years. Ten distinct systems were identified and discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Avital et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: