Jonathan Sevransky1. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, 5501 Hopkins Bayview Circle, Suite 4B-73, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. jsevran1@@jhmi.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinical examination of hemodynamically unstable patients provides timely, low-risk, and potentially useful diagnostic and prognostic information. This review will examine the evidence behind the use of clinical examination findings to drive treatment decisions and predict outcomes in patients with hemodynamic instability. An additional goal of the review is to place the use of clinical examination in context of more invasive techniques to diagnose and treat hemodynamically unstable patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The development of novel diagnostic tests based on recently developed technology has focused attention on methods to determine when a test should enter routine clinical use. The widespread incorporation of pulmonary artery catheterization into clinical practice prior to formal evaluation of its ability to improve outcomes highlights the importance of properly evaluating diagnostic tests in critically ill patients. Formal evaluation of clinical examination as a diagnostic test will allow better understanding of its role in the hemodynamic evaluation of critically ill patients. SUMMARY: Clinical examination remains an important initial step in the diagnosis and risk stratification of patients. Despite limitations of current techniques, the availability, low risk, and ability to perform repetitive tests ensure that clinical examination of the hemodynamically unstable patient will continue to be a useful tool for the intensivist until more useful tests are validated in this patient population.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinical examination of hemodynamically unstable patients provides timely, low-risk, and potentially useful diagnostic and prognostic information. This review will examine the evidence behind the use of clinical examination findings to drive treatment decisions and predict outcomes in patients with hemodynamic instability. An additional goal of the review is to place the use of clinical examination in context of more invasive techniques to diagnose and treat hemodynamically unstable patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The development of novel diagnostic tests based on recently developed technology has focused attention on methods to determine when a test should enter routine clinical use. The widespread incorporation of pulmonary artery catheterization into clinical practice prior to formal evaluation of its ability to improve outcomes highlights the importance of properly evaluating diagnostic tests in critically illpatients. Formal evaluation of clinical examination as a diagnostic test will allow better understanding of its role in the hemodynamic evaluation of critically illpatients. SUMMARY: Clinical examination remains an important initial step in the diagnosis and risk stratification of patients. Despite limitations of current techniques, the availability, low risk, and ability to perform repetitive tests ensure that clinical examination of the hemodynamically unstable patient will continue to be a useful tool for the intensivist until more useful tests are validated in this patient population.
Authors: Herbert P Wiedemann; Arthur P Wheeler; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Douglas Hayden; Ben deBoisblanc; Alfred F Connors; R Duncan Hite; Andrea L Harabin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R Phillip Dellinger; Mitchell M Levy; Jean M Carlet; Julian Bion; Margaret M Parker; Roman Jaeschke; Konrad Reinhart; Derek C Angus; Christian Brun-Buisson; Richard Beale; Thierry Calandra; Jean-Francois Dhainaut; Herwig Gerlach; Maurene Harvey; John J Marini; John Marshall; Marco Ranieri; Graham Ramsay; Jonathan Sevransky; B Taylor Thompson; Sean Townsend; Jeffrey S Vender; Janice L Zimmerman; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Angel López; Jose Angel Lorente; Jay Steingrub; Jan Bakker; Angela McLuckie; Sheila Willatts; Michael Brockway; Antonio Anzueto; Laurent Holzapfel; Desmond Breen; Michael S Silverman; Jukka Takala; Jill Donaldson; Carl Arneson; Geraldine Grove; Steven Grossman; Robert Grover Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Azriel Perel; Bernd Saugel; Jean-Louis Teboul; Manu L N G Malbrain; Francisco Javier Belda; Enrique Fernández-Mondéjar; Mikhail Kirov; Julia Wendon; Roger Lussmann; Marco Maggiorini Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Thomas J Reese; Guilherme Del Fiol; Joseph E Tonna; Kensaku Kawamoto; Noa Segall; Charlene Weir; Brekk C Macpherson; Polina Kukhareva; Melanie C Wright Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Heekyung Kim; Dohee Kwon; Soon Ho Yoon; Hyungjin Kim; Chang Min Park; Jin Mo Goo; Yoon Kyung Jeon; Su Yeon Ahn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-09-21 Impact factor: 3.240