Why the study?
No single cardiac output monitoring device meets all clinical requirements, and evidence for minimally invasive monitoring remains conflicting.
This review highlights that while minimally invasive cardiac output monitors have limitations and cannot entirely replace the pulmonary artery catheter, they are valuable tools for goal-directed hemodynamic therapy in high-risk patients.
Supports selective use of minimally invasive monitors for trends in high-risk patients; leaves open optimal device choice pending prospective comparisons.
The accurate quantification of cardiac output (CO) is given vital importance in modern medical practice, especially in high-risk surgical and critically ill patients. CO monitoring together with perioperative protocols to guide intravenous fluid therapy and inotropic support with the aim of improving CO and oxygen delivery has shown to improve perioperative outcomes in high-risk surgical patients. Understanding of the underlying principles of CO measuring devices helps in knowing the limitations of their use and allows more effective and safer utilization. At present, no single CO monitoring device can meet all the clinical requirements considering the limitations of diverse CO monitoring techniques. The evidence for the minimally invasive CO monitoring is conflicting; however, different CO monitoring devices may be used during the clinical course of patients as an integrated approach based on their invasiveness and the need for additional hemodynamic data. These devices add numerical trend information for anesthesiologists and intensivists to use in determining the most appropriate management of their patients and at present, do not completely prohibit but do increasingly limit the use of the pulmonary artery catheter.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kobe et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: