Literature DB >> 26089166

Clinical practice in perioperative monitoring in adult cardiac surgery: is there a standard of care? Results from an national survey.

Elena Bignami1, Alessandro Belletti2, Paola Moliterni3, Elena Frati2, Marcello Guarnieri2, Luigi Tritapepe4.   

Abstract

This study was to investigate and define what is considered as a current clinical practice in hemodynamic monitoring and vasoactive medication use after cardiac surgery in Italy. A 33-item questionnaire was sent to all intensive care units (ICUs) admitting patients after cardiac surgery. 71 out of 92 identified centers (77.2 %) returned a completed questionnaire. Electrocardiogram, invasive blood pressure, central venous pressure, pulse oximetry, diuresis, body temperature and blood gas analysis were identified as routinely used hemodynamic monitoring, whereas advanced monitoring was performed with pulmonary artery catheter or echocardiography. Crystalloids were the fluids of choice for volume replacement (86.8 % of Centers). To guide volume management, central venous pressure (26.7 %) and invasive blood pressure (19.7 %) were the most frequently used parameters. Dobutamine was the first choice for treatment of left heart dysfunction (40 %) and epinephrine was the first choice for right heart dysfunction (26.8 %). Half of the Centers had an internal protocol for vasoactive drugs administration. Intra-aortic balloon pump and extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation were widely available among Cardiothoracic ICUs. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were suspended in 28 % of the Centers. The survey shows what is considered as standard monitoring in Italian Cardiac ICUs. Standard, routinely used monitoring consists of ECG, SpO2, etCO2, invasive BP, CVP, diuresis, body temperature, and BGA. It also shows that there is large variability among the various Centers regarding hemodynamic monitoring of fluid therapy and inotropes administration. Further research is required to better standardize and define the indicators to improve the standards of intensive care after cardiac surgery among Italian cardiac ICUs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiac surgery; Goal-directed therapy; Hemodynamic monitoring; Inotropic drugs; Intensive care unit

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26089166     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-015-9725-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  34 in total

Review 1.  Does the pulmonary artery catheter still have a role in the perioperative period?

Authors:  B S Cowie
Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 1.669

2.  Clinical impact of the publication of S3 guidelines for intensive care in cardiac surgery patients in Germany: results from a postal survey.

Authors:  M Kastrup; M Carl; C Spies; M Sander; A Markewitz; U Schirmer
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.105

3.  Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock.

Authors:  Daniel De Backer; Patrick Biston; Jacques Devriendt; Christian Madl; Didier Chochrad; Cesar Aldecoa; Alexandre Brasseur; Pierre Defrance; Philippe Gottignies; Jean-Louis Vincent
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-03-04       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 4.  Clinical review: practical recommendations on the management of perioperative heart failure in cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Alexandre Mebazaa; Antonis A Pitsis; Alain Rudiger; Wolfgang Toller; Dan Longrois; Sven-Erik Ricksten; Ilona Bobek; Stefan De Hert; Georg Wieselthaler; Uwe Schirmer; Ludwig K von Segesser; Michael Sander; Don Poldermans; Marco Ranucci; Peter C J Karpati; Patrick Wouters; Manfred Seeberger; Edith R Schmid; Walter Weder; Ferenc Follath
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 9.097

5.  S3 guidelines for intensive care in cardiac surgery patients: hemodynamic monitoring and cardiocirculary system.

Authors:  M Carl; A Alms; J Braun; A Dongas; J Erb; A Goetz; M Goepfert; W Gogarten; J Grosse; A R Heller; M Heringlake; M Kastrup; A Kroener; S A Loer; G Marggraf; A Markewitz; D Reuter; D V Schmitt; U Schirmer; C Wiesenack; B Zwissler; C Spies
Journal:  Ger Med Sci       Date:  2010-06-15

6.  Hydroxyethyl starch or saline for fluid resuscitation in intensive care.

Authors:  John A Myburgh; Simon Finfer; Rinaldo Bellomo; Laurent Billot; Alan Cass; David Gattas; Parisa Glass; Jeffrey Lipman; Bette Liu; Colin McArthur; Shay McGuinness; Dorrilyn Rajbhandari; Colman B Taylor; Steven A R Webb
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-10-17       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Understanding changes in established practice: pulmonary artery catheter use in critically ill patients.

Authors:  Hayley B Gershengorn; Hannah Wunsch
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  Assessment of hemodynamic efficacy and safety of 6% hydroxyethylstarch 130/0.4 vs. 0.9% NaCl fluid replacement in patients with severe sepsis: the CRYSTMAS study.

Authors:  Bertrand Guidet; Olivier Martinet; Thierry Boulain; Francois Philippart; Jean François Poussel; Julien Maizel; Xavier Forceville; Marc Feissel; Michel Hasselmann; Alexandra Heininger; Hugo Van Aken
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 9.  Perioperative cardiovascular monitoring of high-risk patients: a consensus of 12.

Authors:  Jean-Louis Vincent; Paolo Pelosi; Rupert Pearse; Didier Payen; Azriel Perel; Andreas Hoeft; Stefano Romagnoli; V Marco Ranieri; Carole Ichai; Patrice Forget; Giorgio Della Rocca; Andrew Rhodes
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 9.097

10.  Predictors of inotrope use in patients undergoing concomitant coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgeries at separation from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).

Authors:  Imdad Ahmed; Chad M House; William B Nelson
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 1.637

View more
  6 in total

1.  Ultrasonography and Italian anesthesiology: a national cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Pierfrancesco Fusco; Vincenza Cofini; Stefano Di Carlo; Antonio Luciani; Paolo Scimia; Emiliano Petrucci; Astrid U Behr; Stefano Necozione; Laura Brigitta Colantonio; Gilberto Fiore; Alessandro Vergallo; Franco Marinangeli
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2018-11-01

Review 2.  Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2016 end of year summary: cardiovascular and hemodynamic monitoring.

Authors:  Bernd Saugel; Karim Bendjelid; Lester A Critchley; Steffen Rex; Thomas W L Scheeren
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-01-07       Impact factor: 2.502

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

Authors:  Sandra Funcke; Michael Sander; Matthias S Goepfert; Heinrich Groesdonk; Matthias Heringlake; Jan Hirsch; Stefan Kluge; Claus Krenn; Marco Maggiorini; Patrick Meybohm; Cornelie Salzwedel; Bernd Saugel; Gudrun Wagenpfeil; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Daniel A Reuter
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 6.925

Review 4.  Utility of central venous pressure measurement in renal transplantation: Is it evidence based?

Authors:  Ahmed Aref; Tariq Zayan; Ajay Sharma; Ahmed Halawa
Journal:  World J Transplant       Date:  2018-06-28

5.  Postoperative management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery in Austria : A national survey on current clinical practice in hemodynamic monitoring and postoperative management.

Authors:  Johannes Menger; Maximilian Edlinger-Stanger; Martin Dworschak; Barbara Steinlechner
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 1.704

6.  Pulse Pressure Variation-Guided Fluid Therapy during Supratentorial Brain Tumour Excision: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Ahmed Hasanin; Tarek Zanata; Safinaz Osman; Yasser Abdelwahab; Rania Samer; Mohamed Mahmoud; Mona Elsherbiny; Khaled Elshafaei; Fatma Morsy; Amina Omran
Journal:  Open Access Maced J Med Sci       Date:  2019-08-10
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.