Minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring devices provide a viable alternative to pulmonary artery catheters for perioperative optimization, provided clinicians understand their specific technical limitations and sources of error.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support use in optimization protocols with calibration awareness; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm net benefit.
The monitoring of the cardiac output (CO) and other hemodynamic parameters, traditionally performed with the thermodilution method via a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC), is now increasingly done with the aid of less invasive and much easier to use devices. When used within the context of a hemodynamic optimization protocol, they can positively influence the outcome in both surgical and non-surgical patient populations. While these monitoring tools have simplified the hemodynamic calculations, they are subject to limitations and can lead to erroneous results if not used properly. In this article we will review the commercially available minimally invasive CO monitoring devices, explore their technical characteristics and describe the limitations that should be taken into consideration when clinical decisions are made.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chamos et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: