Advertisement

Advanced hemodynamic monitoring in intensive care medicine

A German web-based survey study
  • B. Saugel
  • P. C. Reese
  • J. Y. Wagner
  • M. Buerke
  • W. Huber
  • S. Kluge
  • R. Prondzinsky
Originalien

Abstract

Background

Advanced hemodynamic monitoring is recommended in patients with complex circulatory shock.

Objectives

To evaluate the current attitudes and beliefs among German intensivists, regarding advanced hemodynamic monitoring, the actual hemodynamic management in clinical practice, and the barriers to using it.

Materials and methods

Web-based survey among members of the German Society of Medical Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine.

Results

Of 284 respondents, 249 (87%) agreed that further hemodynamic assessment is needed to determine the type of circulatory shock if no clear clinical diagnosis can be made. In all, 281 (99%) agreed that echocardiography is helpful for this purpose (transpulmonary thermodilution: 225 [79%]; pulmonary artery catheterization: 126 [45%]). More than 70% of respondents agreed that blood flow variables (cardiac output, stroke volume) should be measured in patients with hemodynamic instability. The parameters most respondents agreed should be assessed in a patient with hemodynamic instability were mean arterial pressure, cardiac output, and serum lactate. Echocardiography is available in 99% of ICUs (transpulmonary thermodilution: 91%; pulmonary artery catheter: 63%). The respondents stated that, in clinical practice, invasive arterial pressure measurements and serum lactate measurements are performed in more than 90% of patients with hemodynamic instability (cardiac output monitoring in about 50%; transpulmonary thermodilution in about 40%). The respondents did not feel strong barriers to the use of advanced hemodynamic monitoring in clinical practice.

Conclusions

This survey study shows that German intensivists deem advanced hemodynamic assessment necessary for the differential diagnosis of circulatory shock and to guide therapy with fluids, vasopressors, and inotropes in ICU patients.

Keywords

Echocardiography Transpulmonary thermodilution Pulmonary artery catheter Fluid responsiveness Cardiovascular dynamics 

Erweitertes hämodynamisches Monitoring in der Intensivmedizin

Eine deutsche webbasierte Umfrage

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die Durchführung eines erweiterten hämodynamischen Monitorings wird bei Patienten mit komplexem Kreislaufversagen empfohlen.

Ziel der Arbeit

Evaluierung der Meinungen deutscher Intensivmediziner bezüglich eines erweiterten hämodynamischen Monitorings. Evaluierung des tatsächlich erfolgenden hämodynamischen Managements in der klinischen Praxis sowie von Hindernissen der Durchführung in der deutschen Intensivmedizin.

Material und Methoden

Webbasierte Umfragestudie unter Mitgliedern der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Internistische Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin.

Ergebnisse

Von 284 Teilnehmern stimmten 249 (87 %) zu, dass ein erweitertes hämodynamisches „Assessment“ nötig ist, wenn die Art des Kreislaufversagens klinisch nicht eindeutig diagnostiziert werden kann. Insgesamt 281 (99 %) stimmten zu, dass die Echokardiographie dafür hilfreich ist (transpulmonale Thermodilution: 225 [79 %]; Pulmonaliskatheter: 126 [45 %]). Mehr als 70 % der Teilnehmer stimmten zu, dass Blutflussvariablen (Herzzeitvolumen, Schlagvolumen) bei Patienten mit hämodynamischer Instabilität bestimmt werden sollten. Parameter, die von den meisten Teilnehmern als wichtig bei Patienten mit hämodynamischer Instabilität erachtet wurden, waren der mittlere arterielle Blutdruck, das Herzzeitvolumen und das Serumlaktat. Die Echokardiographie ist in 99 % der Intensivstationen verfügbar (transpulmonale Thermodilution: 91 %; Pulmonaliskatheter: 63 %). Die Teilnehmer gaben an, dass in der klinischen Praxis bei mehr als 90 % der Patienten mit hämodynamischer Instabilität eine invasive Blutdruckmessung und eine Serumlaktatbestimmung erfolgen (Herzzeitvolumen: etwa 50 %; transpulmonale Thermodilution: etwa 40 %). Die Teilnehmer gaben an, dass sie in der klinischen Praxis keine großen Hindernisse für die Durchführung eines erweiterten hämodynamischen Monitorings empfinden würden.

Schlussfolgerung

Diese Umfrage zeigt, dass deutsche Intensivmediziner ein erweitertes hämodynamisches Monitoring für die Differenzialdiagnostik des Kreislaufversagens und für die Steuerung der Therapie mit Flüssigkeit, Vasopressoren und Inotropika für notwendig erachten.

Schlüsselwörter

Echokardiographie Transpulmonale Thermodilution Pulmonaliskatheter Volumenreagibilität Kardiovaskuläre Dynamik 

Notes

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

B. Saugel received institutional research grants, unrestricted research grants and refunds of travel expenses from Tensys Medical Inc. (San Diego, CA, USA). He received refunds of travel expenses and a fee for giving lectures from CNSystems Medizintechnik AG (Graz, Austria). He received a fee for giving lectures and personal fees as a member of the Medical Advisory Board from Pulsion Medical Systems SE (Feldkirchen, Germany) – outside the submitted work. J.Y. Wagner received institutional research grants, unrestricted research grants and received refunds of travel expenses from Tensys Medical Inc. (San Diego, CA, USA). She also received refunds of travel expenses from CNSystems Medizintechnik AG (Graz, Austria) – outside the submitted work. W. Huber received a fee for giving lectures and personal fees as a member of the Medical Advisory Board from Pulsion Medical Systems SE (Feldkirchen, Germany) outside the submitted work. P.C. Reese, M. Buerke, S. Kluge, and R. Prondzinsky declare that they have no competing interests.

The survey was approved and endorsed by the German Society of Medical Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internistische Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, DGIIN) and we performed it by means of a secure web database. As we did not collect any data of individual patients, we did not obtain approval by the ethics committee for this anonymous and nonattributable survey.

Supplementary material

63_2017_302_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (51 kb)
Table 7 Respondents’ answers to the question about barriers to the use of advanced hemodynamic monitoring.
63_2017_302_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (38 kb)
Table 8 Respondents’ answers to the question about how the DGIIN could improve knowledge on hemodynamic monitoring.

References

  1. 1.
    Vincent JL, Rhodes A, Perel A, Martin GS, Della Rocca G, Vallet B, Pinsky MR, Hofer CK, Teboul JL, de Boode WP, Scolletta S, Vieillard-Baron A, De Backer D, Walley KR, Maggiorini M, Singer M (2011) Clinical review: Update on hemodynamic monitoring – a consensus of 16. Crit Care 15(4):229CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, Beale R, Bakker J, Hofer C, Jaeschke R, Mebazaa A, Pinsky MR, Teboul JL, Vincent JL, Rhodes A (2014) Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 40(12):1795–1815CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Janssens U, Jung C, Hennersdorf M, Ferrari M, Fuhrmann J, Buerke M, Ebelt H, Graf T, Thiele H, Kelm M, Simonis G (2016) Recommendations on hemodynamic monitoring in internal intensive care medicine. Kardiologe 10:149–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vincent JL, Pelosi P, Pearse R, Payen D, Perel A, Hoeft A, Romagnoli S, Ranieri VM, Ichai C, Forget P, Della Rocca G, Rhodes A (2015) Perioperative cardiovascular monitoring of high-risk patients: a consensus of 12. Crit Care 19:224CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saugel B, Malbrain ML, Perel A (2016) Hemodynamic monitoring in the era of evidence-based medicine. Crit Care 20(1):401CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saugel B, Ringmaier S, Holzapfel K, Schuster T, Phillip V, Schmid RM, Huber W (2011) Physical examination, central venous pressure, and chest radiography for the prediction of transpulmonary thermodilution-derived hemodynamic parameters in critically ill patients: a prospective trial. J Crit Care 26(4):402–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saugel B, Kirsche SV, Hapfelmeier A, Phillip V, Schultheiss C, Schmid RM, Huber W (2013) Prediction of fluid responsiveness in patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit. J Crit Care 28(4):537.e1–537.e9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perel A, Saugel B, Teboul JL, Malbrain ML, Belda FJ, Fernandez-Mondejar E, Kirov M, Wendon J, Lussmann R, Maggiorini M (2016) The effects of advanced monitoring on hemodynamic management in critically ill patients: a pre and post questionnaire study. J Clin Monit Comput 30(5):511–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Teboul JL, Saugel B, Cecconi M, De Backer D, Hofer CK, Monnet X, Perel A, Pinsky MR, Reuter DA, Rhodes A, Squara P, Vincent JL, Scheeren TW (2016) Less invasive hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 42(9):1350–1359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ospina-Tascon GA, Cordioli RL, Vincent JL (2008) What type of monitoring has been shown to improve outcomes in acutely ill patients? Intensive Care Med 34(5):800–820CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vincent JL (2004) Evidence-based medicine in the ICU: important advances and limitations. Chest 126(2):592–600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Biancofiore G, Cecconi M, Rocca GD (2015) A web-based Italian survey of current trends, habits and beliefs in hemodynamic monitoring and management. J Clin Monit Comput 29(5):635–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cannesson M, Pestel G, Ricks C, Hoeft A, Perel A (2011) Hemodynamic monitoring and management in patients undergoing high risk surgery: a survey among North American and European anesthesiologists. Crit Care 15(4):R197CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Funcke S, Sander M, Goepfert MS, Groesdonk H, Heringlake M, Hirsch J, Kluge S, Krenn C, Maggiorini M, Meybohm P, Salzwedel C, Saugel B, Wagenpfeil G, Wagenpfeil S, Reuter DA (2016) Practice of hemodynamic monitoring and management in German, Austrian, and Swiss intensive care units: the multicenter cross-sectional ICU-CardioMan Study. Ann Intensive Care 6(1):49CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wiener RS, Welch HG (2007) Trends in the use of the pulmonary artery catheter in the United States, 1993–2004. JAMA 298(4):423–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saugel B, Cecconi M, Wagner JY, Reuter DA (2015) Noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring in perioperative and intensive care medicine. Br J Anaesth 114(4):562–575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saugel B, Dueck R, Wagner JY (2014) Measurement of blood pressure. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 28(4):309–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cecconi M, Parsons AK, Rhodes A (2011) What is a fluid challenge? Curr Opin Crit Care 17(3):290–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Monnet X, Teboul JL (2015) Passive leg raising: five rules, not a drop of fluid! Crit Care 19:18CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mair S, Tschirdewahn J, Gotz S, Frank J, Phillip V, Henschel B, Schultheiss C, Mayr U, Noe S, Treiber M, Schmid RM, Saugel B, Huber W (2016) Applicability of stroke volume variation in patients of a general intensive care unit: a longitudinal observational study. J Clin Monit Comput. doi: 10.1007/s10877-016-9951-4. (epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cannesson M, Le Manach Y, Hofer CK, Goarin JP, Lehot JJ, Vallet B, Tavernier B (2011) Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of pulse pressure variations for the prediction of fluid responsiveness: a “gray zone” approach. Anesthesiology 115(2):231–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Joosten A, Desebbe O, Suehiro K, Essiet M, Alexander B, Ricks C, Rinehart J, Faraoni D, Cecconi M, Van der Linden P, Cannesson M (2017) Impact of advanced monitoring variables on intraoperative clinical decision-making: an international survey. J Clin Monit Comput 31(1):205–212. doi: 10.1007/s10877-015-9817-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Braithwaite D, Emery J, De Lusignan S, Sutton S (2003) Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? Fam Pract 20(5):545–551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Saugel
    • 1
  • P. C. Reese
    • 1
  • J. Y. Wagner
    • 1
  • M. Buerke
    • 2
  • W. Huber
    • 3
  • S. Kluge
    • 4
  • R. Prondzinsky
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care MedicineUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Medizinische Klinik II, Kardiologie, Angiologie und Internistische IntensivmedizinSt. Marien-Krankenhaus SiegenSiegenGermany
  3. 3.II. Medizinische Klinik und PoliklinikKlinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität MünchenMunichGermany
  4. 4.Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care MedicineUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  5. 5.Medizinische Klinik ICarl von Basedow Klinikum Saalekreis gGmbHMerseburgGermany

Personalised recommendations