Why the study?
Does goal-directed hemodynamic support improve outcomes in high-risk surgical patients compared to standard monitoring?
Does goal-directed hemodynamic support improve outcomes in high-risk surgical patients compared to standard monitoring?
Goal-directed hemodynamic support using advanced parameters may improve outcomes in high-risk surgical patients compared to standard monitoring.
Should not yet alter perioperative monitoring practices; leaves open need for randomized trials to confirm benefit.
Despite the small number of high-risk surgical patients in comparison to all surgical patients, they account for the largest proportion of overall perioperative mortality. Goal directed hemodynamic support may result in a lower incidence of complications and reduced length of hospital stay in these patients. Beyond the standard monitoring of circulation, such as blood pressure and heart rate, further parameters and procedures such as pulse pressure/stroke volume variation-, stroke volume/cardiac index-, and central venous oxygen saturation-guided resuscitation may improve the outcome of high-risk surgical patients. The aim of this review is to focus on the results of animal and clinical studies investigating the usefulness of these indices in the context of goal-directed perioperative support.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mikor et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: