Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine
By M. Cecconi, D. De Backer, M. Antonelli, R. Beale, J. Bakker, C. Hofer, R. Jaeschke, A. Mebazaa, Michael R. Pinsky, J. Teboul and 2 more. Intensive Care Medicine, 2014
1,527 citations recorded by the source corpus.
ObjectiveCirculatory shock is a life-threatening syndrome resulting in multiorgan failure and a high mortality rate. The aim of this consensus is to provide support to the bedside clinician regarding the diagnosis, management and monitoring of shock.MethodsThe European Society of Intensive Care Medicine invited 12 experts to form a Task Force to update a previous consensus (Antonelli et al.: Intensive Care Med 33:575–590, 2007). The same five questions addressed in the earlier consensus were used as the outline for the literature search and review, with the aim of the Task Force to produce statements based on the available literature and evidence. These questions were: (1) What are the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic features of shock in the intensive care unit? (2) Should we monitor preload and fluid responsiveness in shock? (3) How and when should we monitor stroke volume or cardiac output in shock? (4) What markers of the regional and microcirculation can be monitored, and how can cellular function be assessed in shock? (5) What is the evidence for using hemodynamic monitoring to direct therapy in shock? Four types of statements were used: definition, recommendation, best practice and statement of fact.ResultsForty-four statements were made. The main new statements include: (1) statements on individualizing blood pressure targets; (2) statements on the assessment and prediction of fluid responsiveness; (3) statements on the use of echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring.ConclusionsThis consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock.
Subfields: Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Epidemiology, Surgery
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6c90ea3fa41cf280a51b95fd54a642837fd4123f
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
In Epidemiology
- A. Rhodes
- Laura Evans
- M. Cecconi
- Janice L. Zimmerman
- Mitchell M. Levy
- R. Dellinger
- Mervyn Singer
- Djillali Annane
Citations in the corpus
- Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis (2016, neutral): “with suspected infection (% of total) 148 907 (11) 321 380 (17) 377 325 (23) 1186 (3) 6508 (13)”
- Sepsis and septic shock. (2018, background): “Although many guidelines describe the resuscitation of patients with septic shock, 36,88 the specific bundle elements involved and the guidance of these processes remain controversial.”
- Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016 (2017, background): “Echocardiography in recent years has become available to many bedside clinicians and enables a more detailed assessment of the causes of the hemodynamic issues (22).”