Why the study?
Conventional hemodynamic indices have limited value in diagnosing compensated shock, necessitating advanced monitoring to prevent vital organ hypoperfusion and cellular oxygen debt in high-risk surgical patients.
Does multimodal, individualized advanced hemodynamic monitoring prevent perioperative oxygen debt and postoperative complications in high-risk surgical patients?
Does multimodal, individualized advanced hemodynamic monitoring prevent perioperative oxygen debt and postoperative complications in high-risk surgical patients?
A holistic approach using multimodal, individualized advanced hemodynamic monitoring is recommended to prevent cellular oxygen debt and serious postoperative complications in high-risk surgical patients.
May prompt advanced monitoring in high-risk surgery; leaves open optimal parameters and targets to prevent hypoperfusion.
Perioperative management of high-risk surgical patients is a complex and complicated process. Hemodynamic instability can inflict vital organ hypoperfusion that can have several serious consequences, mainly due to cellular oxygen debt. Therefore, adequate monitoring guided early interventions are inevitable to avoid serious postoperative complications. However, conventional indices, including heart rate, blood pressure, skin temperature and urine output have limited value in diagnosing compensated shock. Therefore, advanced hemodynamic monitoring may become necessary when in addition to cardiac output other measures of oxygen delivery are also taken into account during treatment. However, any alteration that aims to affect macrocirculation only makes sense if it is followed by improved microcirculatory perfusion and adequate oxygen delivery to the cells. Putting the puzzle of hemodynamic stabilization together requires a complex, holistic approach. The purpose of this review is to discuss the holistic approach of multimodal, individualized monitoring that can help to avoid perioperative oxygen debt in high risk surgical patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leiner et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: