Key result
Continuous invasive monitoring of cardiac output may provide more relevant hemodynamic information than blood pressure monitoring during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in severe preeclampsia.
Why the study?
Does continuous invasive monitoring of cardiac output improve hemodynamic management compared to focusing on blood pressure during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in women with severe preeclampsia?
Population
Women with severe preeclampsia undergoing cesarean delivery
Comparison
Continuous invasive monitoring of cardiac output vs Hemodynamic monitoring focused primarily on…
Design
Editorial
Authors
Loading...
Continuous invasive monitoring of cardiac output may offer superior hemodynamic guidance compared to blood pressure monitoring alone in women with severe preeclampsia undergoing cesarean delivery.
Does continuous invasive monitoring of cardiac output improve hemodynamic management compared to focusing on blood pressure during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in women with severe preeclampsia?
Continuous invasive monitoring of cardiac output may offer superior hemodynamic guidance compared to blood pressure monitoring alone in women with severe preeclampsia undergoing cesarean delivery.
Eldrid Langesæter (2008) conducted an editorial in Severe preeclampsia. Continuous invasive monitoring of cardiac output vs. Blood pressure monitoring was evaluated. Continuous invasive monitoring of cardiac output may provide more relevant hemodynamic information than blood pressure monitoring during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in severe preeclampsia.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: