Viscoelastic methods (VEM) made available the bedside assessment of blood clotting. Unlike standard laboratory tests, the results are based on the whole blood coagulation and are available in real time at a much faster turnaround time. In combination with our new knowledge about pathophysiology of the trauma-induced coagulopathy, the goal-oriented treatment protocols have been recently proposed for the initial management of bleeding in trauma victims. Additionally, the utility of viscoelastic monitoring devices has been proved even outside this setting in cardiosurgical patients or those undergoing liver transplantation. Many other situations were described in literature showing the potential use of bedside analysis of coagulation for the management of bleeding or critically ill patients. In the near future, we may expect further improvement in current bedside diagnostic tools enabling not only the assessment of secondary hemostasis but also the platelet aggregation. More sensitive assays for new anticoagulants are underway. Aim of this review is to offer the reader a multidisciplinary overview of VEM and their potential use in anesthesiology and critical care.

Respiratory induced dynamic variations of stroke volume and its surrogates are very sensitive and specific predictors of fluid responsiveness, but their use as targets for volume management can be limited. In a recent study, limiting factors were present in 53 % of surgical patients with inserted arterial line. In the intensive care unit (ICU) population the frequency is presumably higher, but the real prevalence is unknown. Our goal was to study the feasibility of dynamic variations guided initial volume resuscitation in specific critical states. We have performed a 5 year retrospective evaluation of patients admitted with diagnosis sepsis, polytrauma, after high risk surgery or cardiac arrest. Occurrence of major (sedation, mandatory ventilation and tidal volume, open chest and arrhythmias) and minor limiting factors (PEEP level, use of vasopressors and presence of arterial catheter) was screened within the first 24 h after admission. In the study period 1296 patients were hospitalized in our ICU with severe sepsis (n = 242), polytrauma (n = 561), after high risk surgery (n = 351) or cardiac arrest (n = 141). From these patients 549 (42.4 %) fulfilled all major criteria for applicability of dynamic variations. In our evaluation only limited number of patients admitted for polytrauma (51 %), sepsis (37 %), after cardiac arrest (39 %) or surgical procedure (33 %) fulfil all the major criteria for use of dynamic variations at the ICU admission. The prevalence was similar in patients with shock. Occurrence of minor factors can pose further bias in evaluation of these patients. General use of dynamic variations guided protocols for initial resuscitations seems not universally applicable.

BackgroundThe use of goal directed fluid protocols in intermediate risk patients undergoing hip or knee replacement was studied in few trials using invasive monitoring. For this reason we have implemented two different fluid management protocols, both based on a novel totally non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring device and compared them to the standard (no-protocol) treatment applied before the transition in our academic institution.MethodsThree treatment groups were compared in this prospective study: the observational (CONTROL, N = 40) group before adoption of fluid protocols and two randomized groups after the transition to protocol fluid management with the use of the continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitoring (CNAP®) device. In the PRESSURE group (N = 40) standard variables were used for restrictive fluid therapy. Goal directed fluid therapy using pulse pressure variation was used in the GDFT arm (N = 40). The influence on the rate of postoperative complications, on the hospital length of stay and other parameters was assessed.ResultsBoth protocols were associated with decreased fluid administration and maintained hemodynamic stability. Reduced rate of postoperative infection and organ complications (22 (55 %) vs. 33 (83 %) patients; p = 0.016; relative risk 0.67 (0.49–0.91)) was observed in the GDFT group compared to CONTROL. Lower number of patients receiving transfusion (4 (10 %) in GDFT vs. 17 (43 %) in CONTROL; p = 0.005) might contribute to this observation. No significant differences were observed in other end-points.ConclusionIn our study, the use of the fluid protocol based on pulse pressure variation assessed using continuous non-invasive arterial pressure measurement seems to be associated with a reduction in postoperative complications and transfusion needs as compared to standard no-protocol treatment.Trial registrationACTRN12612001014842Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-015-0131-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Since December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 virus has infected millions of people worldwide. In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in need of oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation, dexamethasone 6 mg per day is currently recommended. However, the dose of 6 mg of dexamethasone is currently being reappraised and may miss important therapeutic potential or may prevent potential deleterious effects of higher doses of corticosteroids. Methods REMED is a prospective, open-label, randomised controlled trial testing the superiority of dexamethasone 20 mg (dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1–5, followed by dexamethasone 10 mg on days 6–10) vs 6 mg administered once daily intravenously for 10 days in adult patients with moderate or severe ARDS due to confirmed COVID-19. Three hundred participants will be enrolled and followed up for 360 days after randomization. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio into one of the two treatment arms. The following stratification factors will be applied: age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, CRP levels and trial centre. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days after randomisation. The secondary endpoints are mortality from any cause at 60 days after randomisation; dynamics of the inflammatory marker, change in WHO Clinical Progression Scale at day 14; and adverse events related to corticosteroids and independence at 90 days after randomisation assessed by the Barthel Index. The long-term outcomes of this study are to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days. The study will be conducted in the intensive care units (ICUs) of ten university hospitals in the Czech Republic. Discussion We aim to compare two different doses of dexamethasone in patients with moderate to severe ARDS undergoing mechanical ventilation regarding efficacy and safety. Trial registration EudraCT No. 2020-005887-70. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04663555. Registered on December 11, 2020