ObjectiveCirculatory shock is a life-threatening syndrome resulting in multiorgan failure and a high mortality rate. The aim of this consensus is to provide support to the bedside clinician regarding the diagnosis, management and monitoring of shock.MethodsThe European Society of Intensive Care Medicine invited 12 experts to form a Task Force to update a previous consensus (Antonelli et al.: Intensive Care Med 33:575–590, 2007). The same five questions addressed in the earlier consensus were used as the outline for the literature search and review, with the aim of the Task Force to produce statements based on the available literature and evidence. These questions were: (1) What are the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic features of shock in the intensive care unit? (2) Should we monitor preload and fluid responsiveness in shock? (3) How and when should we monitor stroke volume or cardiac output in shock? (4) What markers of the regional and microcirculation can be monitored, and how can cellular function be assessed in shock? (5) What is the evidence for using hemodynamic monitoring to direct therapy in shock? Four types of statements were used: definition, recommendation, best practice and statement of fact.ResultsForty-four statements were made. The main new statements include: (1) statements on individualizing blood pressure targets; (2) statements on the assessment and prediction of fluid responsiveness; (3) statements on the use of echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring.ConclusionsThis consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock.

Perioperative monitoring of blood coagulation is critical to better understand causes of hemorrhage, to guide hemostatic therapies, and to predict the risk of bleeding during the consecutive anesthetic or surgical procedures. Point-of-care (POC) coagulation monitoring devices assessing the viscoelastic properties of whole blood, i.e., thrombelastography, rotation thrombelastometry, and Sonoclot analysis, may overcome several limitations of routine coagulation tests in the perioperative setting. The advantage of these techniques is that they have the potential to measure the clotting process, starting with fibrin formation and continue through to clot retraction and fibrinolysis at the bedside, with minimal delays. Furthermore, the coagulation status of patients is assessed in whole blood, allowing the plasmatic coagulation system to interact with platelets and red cells, and thereby providing useful additional information on platelet function. Viscoelastic POC coagulation devices are increasingly being used in clinical practice, especially in the management of patients undergoing cardiac and liver surgery. Furthermore, they provide useful information in a large variety of clinical scenarios, e.g., massive hemorrhage, assessment of hypo- and hypercoagulable states, guiding pro- and anticoagulant therapies, and in diagnosing of a surgical bleeding. A surgical etiology of bleeding has to be considered when viscoelastic test results are normal. In summary, viscoelastic POC coagulation devices may help identify the cause of bleeding and guide pro- and anticoagulant therapies. To ensure optimal accuracy and performance, standardized procedures for blood sampling and handling, strict quality controls and trained personnel are required.

BackgroundFluid challenges (FCs) are one of the most commonly used therapies in critically ill patients and represent the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in intensive care units. There are clear benefits and harms from fluid therapy. Limited data on the indication, type, amount and rate of an FC in critically ill patients exist in the literature. The primary aim was to evaluate how physicians conduct FCs in terms of type, volume, and rate of given fluid; the secondary aim was to evaluate variables used to trigger an FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC.MethodsThis was an observational study conducted in ICUs around the world. Each participating unit entered a maximum of 20 patients with one FC.Results2213 patients were enrolled and analyzed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during an FC was 500 ml (500–1000). The median time was 24 min (40–60 min), and the median rate of FC was 1000 [500–1333] ml/h. The main indication for FC was hypotension in 1211 (59 %, CI 57–61 %). In 43 % (CI 41–45 %) of the cases no hemodynamic variable was used. Static markers of preload were used in 785 of 2213 cases (36 %, CI 34–37 %). Dynamic indices of preload responsiveness were used in 483 of 2213 cases (22 %, CI 20–24 %). No safety variable for the FC was used in 72 % (CI 70–74 %) of the cases. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who received further fluids after the FC between those with a positive, with an uncertain or with a negatively judged response.ConclusionsThe current practice and evaluation of FC in critically ill patients are highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not used routinely, safety limits are rarely used, and information from previous failed FCs is not always taken into account.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Respiratory arterial pulse pressure variations (PPV) are the best predictors of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients during general anesthesia.

Hemodynamic monitoring plays a fundamental role in the management of acutely ill patients. With increased concerns about the use of invasive techniques, notably the pulmonary artery catheter, to measure cardiac output, recent years have seen an influx of new, less-invasive means of measuring hemodynamic variables, leaving the clinician somewhat bewildered as to which technique, if any, is best and which he/she should use. In this consensus paper, we try to provide some clarification, offering an objective review of the available monitoring systems, including their specific advantages and limitations, and highlighting some key principles underlying hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients.

Over the last decade, the way to monitor hemodynamics at the bedside has evolved considerably in the intensive care unit as well as in the operating room. The most important evolution has been the declining use of the pulmonary artery catheter along with the growing use of echocardiography and of continuous, real-time, minimally or totally non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring techniques. This article, which is the result of an agreement between authors belonging to the Cardiovascular Dynamics Section of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, discusses the advantages and limits of using such techniques with an emphasis on their respective place in the hemodynamic management of critically ill patients with hemodynamic instability.

No abstract

Introduction Stroke volume variation (SVV) has repeatedly been shown to be a reliable predictor of fluid responsiveness. Various devices allow automated clinical assessment of SVV. The aim of the present study was to compare prediction of fluid responsiveness using SVV, as determined by the FloTrac™/ Vigileo™ system and the PiCCOplus™ system.