Title |
Clinical review: Update on hemodynamic monitoring - a consensus of 16
|
---|---|
Published in |
Critical Care, August 2011
|
DOI | 10.1186/cc10291 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jean-Louis Vincent, Andrew Rhodes, Azriel Perel, Greg S Martin, Giorgio Della Rocca, Benoit Vallet, Michael R Pinsky, Christoph K Hofer, Jean-Louis Teboul, Willem-Pieter de Boode, Sabino Scolletta, Antoine Vieillard-Baron, Daniel De Backer, Keith R Walley, Marco Maggiorini, Mervyn Singer |
Abstract |
Hemodynamic monitoring plays a fundamental role in the management of acutely ill patients. With increased concerns about the use of invasive techniques, notably the pulmonary artery catheter, to measure cardiac output, recent years have seen an influx of new, less-invasive means of measuring hemodynamic variables, leaving the clinician somewhat bewildered as to which technique, if any, is best and which he/she should use. In this consensus paper, we try to provide some clarification, offering an objective review of the available monitoring systems, including their specific advantages and limitations, and highlighting some key principles underlying hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 3 | 38% |
Greece | 1 | 13% |
Mexico | 1 | 13% |
Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Brazil | 5 | <1% |
Italy | 3 | <1% |
Spain | 3 | <1% |
South Africa | 3 | <1% |
Turkey | 2 | <1% |
United States | 2 | <1% |
Portugal | 2 | <1% |
France | 1 | <1% |
Sweden | 1 | <1% |
Other | 12 | 2% |
Unknown | 589 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 91 | 15% |
Researcher | 91 | 15% |
Student > Postgraduate | 80 | 13% |
Student > Master | 59 | 9% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 52 | 8% |
Other | 161 | 26% |
Unknown | 89 | 14% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 430 | 69% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 4% |
Engineering | 24 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 2% |
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 7 | 1% |
Other | 26 | 4% |
Unknown | 102 | 16% |