Key result
GDT shows potential benefit in high-risk surgery but lacks sufficient evidence for standard of care.
Why the study?
The efficacy of goal-directed therapy (GDT) in various medical settings, including septic shock and high-risk surgery, remains uncertain and requires further evaluation.
Does goal-directed therapy improve outcomes in various medical and perioperative settings?
Does goal-directed therapy improve outcomes in various medical and perioperative settings?
Goal-directed therapy may offer benefits in high-risk surgical settings, but its routine use in septic shock is challenged by recent evidence, highlighting the need for context-specific application.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews the current evidence behind goal-directed therapy (GDT) in multiple medical settings. RECENT FINDINGS: Although some studies advocate for the use of GDT, others do not and more studies are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of GDT in medicine. Previously accepted guidelines for treating patients in septic shock which include GDT in their algorithms are not supported by the findings in recent randomized, controlled trials. No generally accepted guidelines for GDT are available for perioperative use, but there is evidence supporting GDT in high-risk surgery such as major abdominal surgery and cardiac surgery. Clinicians should be aware of the potential benefits of GDT in these settings and use these evidence-based findings to help guide clinical decisions in these patient populations. SUMMARY: The use of GDT may be beneficial depending on the clinical setting, but more evidence supporting its use is necessary before it can be considered standard of care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O’Neal et al. (2015) conducted a review in Septic shock and high-risk surgery. Goal-directed therapy (GDT) was evaluated. Goal-directed therapy may be beneficial in high-risk surgery such as major abdominal and cardiac surgery, but more evidence is necessary before it can be considered standard of care.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: