Why the study?
To discuss possible alternatives to invasive hemodynamic monitoring for perioperative goal-directed therapy in low-resource settings.
What are the possible alternatives to invasive hemodynamic monitoring for perioperative goal-directed therapy in low-resource settings?
What are the possible alternatives to invasive hemodynamic monitoring for perioperative goal-directed therapy in low-resource settings?
This narrative review highlights the need for and discusses alternatives to invasive hemodynamic monitoring to facilitate perioperative goal-directed therapy in low-resource settings.
PGDT may reduce complications in high-risk surgery; leaves open whether noninvasive alternatives suffice in low-resource settings.
Perioperative Goal-Directed Therapy (PGDT) has significantly showed to decrease complications and risk of death in high-risk patients according to numerous meta-analyses. The main goal of PGDT is to individualize the therapy with fluids, inotropes, and vasopressors, during and after surgery, according to patients' needs in order to prevent organic dysfunction development. In this opinion paper we aimed to focus a discussion on possible alternatives to invasive hemodynamic monitoring in low resource settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lobo et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: