Brazilian consensus of monitoring and hemodynamic support - Part V: hemodynamic support - Critical Care Science (CCS)
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.
Search
Search in:
Search
Search in:
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.
Comments