Practice of hemodynamic monitoring and management in German, Austrian, and Swiss intensive care units: the multicenter cross-sectional ICU-CardioMan Study

Abstract

Background Hemodynamic instability is frequent and outcome-relevant in critical illness. The understanding of complex hemodynamic disturbances and their monitoring and management plays an important role in treatment of intensive care patients. An increasing number of treatment recommendations and guidelines in intensive care medicine emphasize hemodynamic goals, which go beyond the measurement of blood pressures. Yet, it is not known to which extent the infrastructural prerequisites for extended hemodynamic monitoring are given in intensive care units (ICUs) and how hemodynamic management is performed in clinical practice. Further, it is still unclear which factors trigger the use of extended hemodynamic monitoring.MethodsIn this multicenter, 1-day (November 7, 2013, and the preceding 24 h) cross-sectional study, we retrieved data on patient monitoring from ICUs in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland by means of a web-based case report form. One hundred and sixty-one intensive care units contributed detailed information on availability of hemodynamic monitoring. In addition, detailed information on hemodynamic monitoring of 1789 patients that were treated on due date was collected, and independent factors triggering the use of extended hemodynamic monitoring were identified by multivariate analysis.ResultsBesides basic monitoring with electrocardiography (ECG), pulse oximetry, and blood pressure monitoring, the majority of patients received invasive arterial (77.9 %) and central venous catheterization (55.2 %). All over, additional extended hemodynamic monitoring for assessment of cardiac output was only performed in 12.3 % of patients, while echocardiographic examination was used in only 1.9 %. The strongest independent predictors for the use of extended hemodynamic monitoring of any kind were mechanical ventilation, the need for catecholamine therapy, and treatment backed by protocols. In 71.6 % of patients in whom extended hemodynamic monitoring was added during the study period, this extension led to changes in treatment.ConclusionsExtended hemodynamic monitoring, which goes beyond the measurement of blood pressures, to date plays a minor role in the surveillance of critically ill patients in German, Austrian, and Swiss ICUs. This includes also consensus-based recommended diagnostic and monitoring applications, such as echocardiography and cardiac output monitoring. Mechanical ventilation, the use of catecholamines, and treatment backed by protocol could be identified as factors independently associated with higher use of extended hemodynamic monitoring.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13613-016-0148-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Feasibility of cardiac output measurements in critically ill patients by medical students

“…Critical care ultrasonography (CCUS) is a deliberately focused examination, aimed at rapidly answering straightforward clinical questions [1]. In the field of emergency and critical care medicine, CCUS is increasingly used to guide interventions in critically ill patients in various settings by experts and novices [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. The training process required for users to attain competency in CCUS has varied widely between studies, reflecting the diversity in CCUS training between centers.…”

Leitlinien in der Praxis: der herzchirurgische Patient in der intensivmedizinischen Versorgung

“…Das Basismonitoring stellt ein fest verankertes Konzept in der Intensivtherapie dar und sollte auch bei jedem postoperativen herzchirurgischen Intensivpatienten angewendet werden [2,3].…”

Measurement of central venous pressure is associated with better outcomes in septic patients: a retrospective observational study

“…While studies regarding CVP as an indicator of volume status or fluid responsiveness were disappointing [4][5][6]. However, CVP remains to be widely used in clinical practice despite that the latest guidelines hadn't recommended CVP to guided fluid administration in sepsis any more [7,8].…”