Você pesquisou por y - Critical Care Science (CCS)
You searched for:"Patrícia Veiga C Mello"
We found (2) results for your search.Abstract
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 2006;18(1):63-77
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2006000100012
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Monitoring of vital functions is one of the most important tools in the management of critically ill patients. Nowadays is possible to detect and analyze a great deal of physiologic data using a lot of invasive and non-invasive methods. The intensivist must be able to select and carry out the most appropriate monitoring technique according to the patient requirements and taking into account the benefit/risk ratio. Despite the fast development of non invasive monitoring techniques, invasive hemodynamic monitoring using Pulmonary Artery Catheter still is one of the basic procedures in Critical Care. The aim was to define recommendations about clinical utility of basic hemodynamic monitoring methods and the Use of Pulmonary Artery Catheter. METHODS: Modified Delphi methodology was used to create and quantify the consensus between the participants. AMIB indicated a coordinator who invited more six experts in the area of monitoring and hemodynamic support to constitute the Consensus Advisory Board. Twenty-five physicians and nurses selected from different regions of the country completed the expert panel, which reviewed the pertinent bibliography listed at the MEDLINE in the period from 1996 to 2004. RESULTS: Recommendations were made based on 55 questions about the use of central venous pressure, invasive arterial pressure, pulmonary artery catheter and its indications in different settings. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of central venous pressure and invasive arterial pressure, besides variables obtained by the PAC allow the understanding of cardiovascular physiology that is of great value to the care of critically ill patients. However, the correct use of these tools is fundamental to achieve the benefits due to its use.
Abstract
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 2006;18(1):63-77
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2006000100012
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Monitoring of vital functions is one of the most important tools in the management of critically ill patients. Nowadays is possible to detect and analyze a great deal of physiologic data using a lot of invasive and non-invasive methods. The intensivist must be able to select and carry out the most appropriate monitoring technique according to the patient requirements and taking into account the benefit/risk ratio. Despite the fast development of non invasive monitoring techniques, invasive hemodynamic monitoring using Pulmonary Artery Catheter still is one of the basic procedures in Critical Care. The aim was to define recommendations about clinical utility of basic hemodynamic monitoring methods and the Use of Pulmonary Artery Catheter. METHODS: Modified Delphi methodology was used to create and quantify the consensus between the participants. AMIB indicated a coordinator who invited more six experts in the area of monitoring and hemodynamic support to constitute the Consensus Advisory Board. Twenty-five physicians and nurses selected from different regions of the country completed the expert panel, which reviewed the pertinent bibliography listed at the MEDLINE in the period from 1996 to 2004. RESULTS: Recommendations were made based on 55 questions about the use of central venous pressure, invasive arterial pressure, pulmonary artery catheter and its indications in different settings. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of central venous pressure and invasive arterial pressure, besides variables obtained by the PAC allow the understanding of cardiovascular physiology that is of great value to the care of critically ill patients. However, the correct use of these tools is fundamental to achieve the benefits due to its use.
Abstract
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 2006;18(1):78-85
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2006000100013
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiac output and preload as absolute data do not offer helpful information about the hemodynamic of critically ill patients. However, monitoring the response of these variables to volume challenge or inotropic drugs is a very useful tool in the critical care setting, particularly for patients with signs of tissue hypoperfusion. Although PAC remains the " gold standard" to measure cardiac output and preload, new and alternative technologies were developed to evaluate these hemodynamic variables. METHODS: Modified Delphi methodology was used to create and quantify the consensus between the participants. AMIB indicated a coordinator who invited more six experts in the area of monitoring and hemodynamic support to constitute the Consensus Advisory Board. Twenty three physician and two nurses selected from different regions of the country completed the expert panel, which reviewed the pertinent bibliography listed at the MEDLINE in the period from 1996 to 2004. RESULTS: Recommendations regarding the use of arterial pulse pressure variation during mechanical ventilation, continuous arterial pulse contour and lithium dilution cardiac output measurements, esophageal Doppler waveform, thoracic electrical bioimpedance, echocardiography and partial CO2 rebreathing for monitoring cardiac output and preload were created. CONCLUSIONS: The new and less invasive techniques for the measurement of cardiac output, preload or fluid responsiveness are accurate and may be an alternative to PAC in critically ill patients.
Abstract
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 2006;18(1):78-85
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2006000100013
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiac output and preload as absolute data do not offer helpful information about the hemodynamic of critically ill patients. However, monitoring the response of these variables to volume challenge or inotropic drugs is a very useful tool in the critical care setting, particularly for patients with signs of tissue hypoperfusion. Although PAC remains the " gold standard" to measure cardiac output and preload, new and alternative technologies were developed to evaluate these hemodynamic variables. METHODS: Modified Delphi methodology was used to create and quantify the consensus between the participants. AMIB indicated a coordinator who invited more six experts in the area of monitoring and hemodynamic support to constitute the Consensus Advisory Board. Twenty three physician and two nurses selected from different regions of the country completed the expert panel, which reviewed the pertinent bibliography listed at the MEDLINE in the period from 1996 to 2004. RESULTS: Recommendations regarding the use of arterial pulse pressure variation during mechanical ventilation, continuous arterial pulse contour and lithium dilution cardiac output measurements, esophageal Doppler waveform, thoracic electrical bioimpedance, echocardiography and partial CO2 rebreathing for monitoring cardiac output and preload were created. CONCLUSIONS: The new and less invasive techniques for the measurement of cardiac output, preload or fluid responsiveness are accurate and may be an alternative to PAC in critically ill patients.