Abstract
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 05-06-2008;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. 05-06-2008;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. 04-30-2008;18(2):154-160
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2006000200009
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The main cardiovascular function is to maintain the adequate perfusion e oxygen delivery to the cells. Physiologically, this is controlled by the cellular metabolic rate. The critically ill patients are in high danger of tissue hipoperfusion and this is directly related to cellular injury and organ dysfunction. Therefore, the tissue perfusion monitoring makes part and is indissociated of hemodynamic evaluation of the critically ill patient and is indicated to all this patients. The objective was to define recommendations about clinical utility of different tolls to bedside perfusion monitoring. 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 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 were done about the utility of clinical monitoring of tissue perfusion, temperature gradient and transcutaneous oxygen monitoring, serum lactate, base excess, SvO² and ScvO², gastric and sublingual capnometry, CO² venous-arterial gradient and Orthogonal Polarization Spectral (OPS). CONCLUSIONS: The homodynamic compensation of a critically ill patient isn’t complete unless the tissue perfusion is corrected. Many different methods of monitoring is available and are useful in clinical practice, however, none has accuracy and effectiveness characteristics to be used independently of clinical context.
Abstract
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 04-28-2008;18(2):161-176
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2006000200010
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Shock occurs when the circulatory system cannot maintain adequate cellular perfusion. If this condition is not reverted irreversible cellular injury establishes. Shock treatment has as its initial priority the fast and vigorous correction of mean arterial pressure and cardiac output to maintain life and avoid or lessen organic dysfunctions. Fluid challenge and vasoactive drugs are necessary to warrant an adequate tissue perfusion and maintenance of function of different organs and systems, always guided by cardiovascular monitorization. The recommendations built in this consensus are aimed to guide hemodynamic support needed to maintain adequate tisular perfusion. 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 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 were made answering 17 questions about hemodynamic support with focus on fluid challenge, red blood cell transfusions, vasoactive drugs and perioperative hemodynamic optimization. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic monitoring by itself does not reduce the mortality of critically ill patients, however, we believe that the correct interpretation of the data obtained by the hemodynamic monitoring and the use of hemodynamic support protocols based on well defined tissue perfusion goals can improve the outcome of these patients.