The previous consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring was brilliant. I have a talk for the residents of our ICU which is almost entirely based on this paper.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-014-3525-z

#Hemodynamics #Monitoring #CriticalCare #Shock #FOAMcc

Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine - Intensive Care Medicine

Objective Circulatory 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. Methods The 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. Results Forty-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. Conclusions This consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock.

SpringerLink

Can’t wait for the new one which is about to be released at #LIVES2023 #ESICM

(Even if I’ll have to update my talk)

@rombarthelemy very interested in reading the new one too! Please toot when it goes live 🙏

Talks are meant to evolve over time for sure… even those we thought were set in stone (particularly those one 🤔)

@matdesgro Not much change from the previous one. And some weird stuff on fluid responsiveness and capillary refilled time.

@rombarthelemy oh it's disappointing. I can understand weird stuff in volemia, fluid responsiveness/intolerance/allergy/etc. Don’t we give fluid since many years & yet still don’t know the dose, duration & adequate monitoring, do we?

But on CRT? It seems pretty straightforward for me 🤷‍♂️
Thanks for sharing !

@matdesgro I mean we all agree that lactate guided resuscitation is a dumb strategy. In RCT comparing #lactate guided vs #CRT guided, no difference was found. Then, CRT guided resuscitation is a dumb strategy

Just as any strategy based on the correction of clinical signs of #shock (#tachycardia, #hypotension, encephalopathy, #oliguria, crt, #molting, cutaneous temperature or lactate). This are signs of a syndrome, none of them is nor sensitive nor specific alone.

@rombarthelemy well said👌👌 chasing one clinical data point is missing the patient evolving clinical story…

I can understand the need for a specific target of something for research purposes but at the same it completely misses the point of taking hemodynamic as a whole. It lack clinical data point integration. Hemodynamic evaluation is based on this & cannot be separated into several isolated clinical data points imho