» Articles » PMID: 38364037

Dynamic Monitoring Tools for Patients Admitted to the Emergency Department with Circulatory Failure: Narrative Review with Panel-based Recommendations

Overview
Journal Eur J Emerg Med
Specialty Emergency Medicine
Date 2024 Feb 16
PMID 38364037
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Intravenous fluid therapy is commonly administered in the emergency department (ED). Despite the deleterious potential of over- and under-resuscitation, professional society guidelines continue to recommend administering a fixed volume of fluid in initial resuscitation. Predicting whether a specific patient will respond to fluid therapy remains one of the most important, but challenging questions that ED clinicians face in clinical practice. Surrogate parameters (i.e. blood pressure and heart rate), are widely used in usual care to estimate changes in stroke volume (SV). Due to their inadequacy in estimating SV, noninvasive techniques (e.g. bioreactance, echocardiography, noninvasive finger cuff technology), have been proposed as a more accurate and readily deployable method for assessing flow and preload responsiveness. Dynamic monitoring systems based on cardiac preload challenge and assessment of SV, by using noninvasive and continuous methods, provide more accurate, feasible, efficient, and reasonably accurate strategy for prediction of fluid responsiveness than static measurements. In this article, we aimed to analyze the different methods currently available for dynamic monitoring of preload responsiveness.

Citing Articles

Tidal Volume Challenge to Assess Volume Responsiveness with Dynamic Preload Indices During Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective Study.

Griva P, Kapetanakis E, Milionis O, Panagouli K, Fountoulaki M, Sidiropoulou T J Clin Med. 2025; 14(1.

PMID: 39797182 PMC: 11721188. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14010101.

References
1.
Desai N, Garry D . Assessing dynamic fluid-responsiveness using transthoracic echocardiography in intensive care. BJA Educ. 2021; 18(7):218-226. PMC: 7807830. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjae.2018.03.005. View

2.
Marik P . Noninvasive cardiac output monitors: a state-of the-art review. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012; 27(1):121-34. DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2012.03.022. View

3.
Wyffels P, Durnez P, Helderweirt J, Stockman W, De Kegel D . Ventilation-induced plethysmographic variations predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Anesth Analg. 2007; 105(2):448-52. DOI: 10.1213/01.ane.0000267520.16003.17. View

4.
Chung Y, Kim E . Usefulness of bioelectrical impedance analysis and ECW ratio as a guidance for fluid management in critically ill patients after operation. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):12168. PMC: 8190036. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-91819-7. View

5.
Hamzaoui O, Boissier F . Hemodynamic monitoring in cardiogenic shock. J Intensive Med. 2023; 3(2):104-113. PMC: 10175734. DOI: 10.1016/j.jointm.2022.10.003. View