Why the study?
Invasive hemodynamic monitoring methods have notable drawbacks and complications, prompting the need to evaluate newer noninvasive and minimally invasive alternatives.
What are the advantages, drawbacks, and limitations of non-invasive and minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring methods compared to invasive methods in ICU patients?
What are the advantages, drawbacks, and limitations of non-invasive and minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring methods compared to invasive methods in ICU patients?
This review outlines the advantages and limitations of newer non-invasive and minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring methods compared to traditional invasive techniques in the ICU.
Offers clinicians a practical overview of non-invasive alternatives; leaves open the need for prospective validation against invasive standards.
One of the most important variables in assessing hemodynamic status in the intensive care unit (ICU) is the cardiac function and blood pressure. Invasive methods such as pulmonary artery catheter and arterial line allow monitoring of blood pressure and cardiac function accurately and reliably. However, their use is not without drawbacks, especially when the invasive nature of these procedures and complications associated with them are considered. There are several newer methods of noninvasive and minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring available. In this manuscript, we will review these different methods of minimally invasive and non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring and will discuss their advantages, drawbacks and limitations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pour‐Ghaz et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: