Review summarizes progressive strategies for individualized hemodynamic management in critically ill patients, suggesting improved outcomes.
With advances in the understanding of shock pathophysiology and the development of hemodynamic theory and monitoring technologies, clinical strategies for shock assessment and treatment are undergoing substantial changes. First, finer delineation of the pathophysiological stages of shock enables multidimensional evaluation of circulatory status and thereby improves therapeutic precision. Second, individualized interpretation of monitoring variables within evidence-based and physiological frameworks provides a feasible approach to personalized hemodynamic interventions in critically ill patients. Third, because shock evolves in distinct temporal phases, hemodynamic phenotypes and treatment responsiveness change over the disease course, necessitating concomitant dynamic adjustment of therapeutic targets. Accordingly, defining an overall therapeutic goal, decomposing it into operational, tiered sub-targets, and continuously recalibrating these targets throughout the clinical course have become key requirements of contemporary critical care hemodynamic management. This review organizes hemodynamic management around clinically verifiable endpoints. The overarching goal of hemodynamic management is to maintain adequate tissue perfusion and oxygenation while minimizing treatment-related iatrogenic injury, thereby reducing the risk of cellular hypoxic damage and multiple organ dysfunction. Guided by this goal, clinical decision-making can be structured as a continuous loop of “identifying hypoperfusion—qualitative mechanistic phenotyping (allowing mixed shock)—tiered quantitative monitoring—goal decomposition (perfusion pressure, flow, oxygen metabolism)—intervention with metric binding—reassessment and dynamic recalibration,” consistent with the time-varying nature of shock pathophysiology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: