Hemodynamic Monitoring in Critical Care

Hemodynamic Monitoring in Critical Care: A Comprehensive Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath ,claude.ai

Abstract

Hemodynamic monitoring is fundamental to the management of critically ill patients. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of contemporary hemodynamic monitoring techniques, including invasive monitors (arterial line, central venous pressure, pulse-pressure variation), point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), echocardiography, and advanced devices (PiCCO) to guide volume status assessment and vasoactive therapy. We discuss the physiological principles underlying each modality, their clinical applications, limitations, and emerging evidence supporting their use in critical care settings. Integration of multiple monitoring techniques allows for more accurate assessment of cardiac function, preload, afterload, and fluid responsiveness, facilitating personalized management strategies. The ideal approach involves selecting appropriate monitoring tools based on individual patient characteristics and clinical context, while maintaining awareness of the inherent limitations of each technique.

Keywords: Hemodynamic monitoring; critical care; arterial line; central venous pressure; pulse pressure variation; point-of-care ultrasound; echocardiography; PiCCO; volume status; vasoactive therapy

Introduction

Hemodynamic instability is a common challenge in critically ill patients and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Accurate assessment and continuous monitoring of cardiovascular function are essential for early recognition of deterioration and to guide therapeutic interventions.[1] The goals of hemodynamic monitoring are to identify the underlying cause of instability, guide fluid resuscitation, optimize cardiac function, and assess response to interventions.[2]

Historically, clinical assessment alone was used to guide management decisions. However, physical examination findings such as capillary refill, skin temperature, and jugular venous distension have been shown to have poor sensitivity and specificity for predicting fluid responsiveness and optimizing hemodynamic parameters.[3] This limitation has driven the development and adoption of various monitoring techniques, ranging from simple invasive monitoring to sophisticated non-invasive technologies.

This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of contemporary hemodynamic monitoring techniques used in critical care settings, their physiological principles, clinical applications, and limitations. We also discuss the evidence supporting various approaches and how they can be integrated to optimize patient management.

Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring

Arterial Line

Physiological Basis and Technical Aspects

Arterial catheterization provides continuous, beat-to-beat measurement of arterial blood pressure. The most common sites for insertion are the radial, femoral, and brachial arteries. The system consists of a catheter connected to a fluid-filled tubing system and a pressure transducer that converts pressure signals to electrical signals, which are then amplified and displayed.[4]

Clinical Applications

Arterial lines offer several advantages in critical care settings:

• Continuous and accurate blood pressure monitoring
• Access for frequent arterial blood sampling
• Source for derivation of dynamic parameters like pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV)
• Calculation of derived parameters such as rate-pressure product and pressure-time integral[5]

Accuracy and Limitations

The accuracy of arterial pressure measurement is influenced by several factors, including:

• Proper zeroing and calibration of the transducer system
• Optimal damping coefficient of the measurement system
• The site of measurement (central vs. peripheral)[6]

Discrepancies between invasive and non-invasive blood pressure measurements are well-documented, particularly in settings of hemodynamic instability, vasopressor use, and hypothermia.[7] Peripheral arterial measurements may underestimate central aortic pressure due to pressure wave amplification, while overestimating systolic pressure in elderly patients with stiff arteries.[8]

Complications

Potential complications include:

• Thrombosis and distal ischemia (0.1-1.5%)
• Infection (0.13-0.7%)
• Pseudoaneurysm formation (0.09-0.4%)
• Bleeding[9]

Central Venous Pressure (CVP)

Physiological Basis

Central venous pressure is the pressure measured in the superior vena cava or right atrium. It reflects right ventricular filling pressure and has traditionally been used as a surrogate for preload and volume status.[10]

Technical Aspects

CVP is measured via a central venous catheter with its tip positioned at the junction of the superior vena cava and right atrium. The measurement can be obtained using a water manometer or electronic transducer. Normal CVP ranges from 3-8 mmHg in spontaneously breathing patients.[11]

Clinical Applications and Limitations

While CVP has been widely used to guide fluid management, numerous studies have demonstrated its poor correlation with blood volume and limited ability to predict fluid responsiveness.[12,13] A systematic review by Marik et al. found that the relationship between CVP and blood volume was poor (pooled correlation coefficient r = 0.27), and its ability to predict fluid responsiveness was similarly limited (area under ROC curve = 0.56).[14]

Factors influencing CVP measurements include:

• Intrathoracic pressure changes during respiration
• Right ventricular compliance
• Tricuspid valve function
• Intra-abdominal pressure
• Positive pressure ventilation[15]

Despite these limitations, CVP trends over time and in response to interventions may provide useful information when interpreted in the context of other hemodynamic parameters and clinical findings.[16]

Pulse Pressure Variation (PPV) and Stroke Volume Variation (SVV)

Physiological Basis

PPV and SVV are dynamic parameters derived from heart-lung interactions during mechanical ventilation. During positive pressure ventilation, intrathoracic pressure increases, reducing venous return and right ventricular preload. This effect is transmitted to the left heart after a few beats, resulting in cyclical variations in left ventricular stroke volume and pulse pressure, which are more pronounced in hypovolemic states.[17]

Measurement Techniques

PPV is calculated as the difference between maximum and minimum pulse pressure (PP) values during a respiratory cycle, divided by the mean PP:

PPV = (PPmax - PPmin) / [(PPmax + PPmin) / 2] × 100%

Similarly, SVV is calculated using the maximum and minimum stroke volumes:

SVV = (SVmax - SVmin) / [(SVmax + SVmin) / 2] × 100%

PPV can be measured from an arterial line waveform, while SVV requires additional monitoring devices that can estimate stroke volume.[18]

Clinical Applications

PPV and SVV have been shown to reliably predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients without spontaneous breathing efforts. A PPV >13% generally predicts fluid responsiveness with high sensitivity and specificity.[19]

Limitations

Several conditions limit the reliability of PPV and SVV:

• Spontaneous breathing activity
• Cardiac arrhythmias
• Right ventricular failure
• Low tidal volume ventilation (<8 mL/kg)
• Open chest conditions
• Increased intra-abdominal pressure
• Low heart rate/respiratory rate ratio (<3.6)[20,21]

Pulmonary Artery Catheter (PAC)

Physiological Basis and Technical Aspects

The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) or Swan-Ganz catheter allows measurement of pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), cardiac output, and mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO₂).[22]

Clinical Applications

PAC provides comprehensive hemodynamic assessment:

• Right and left heart filling pressures
• Cardiac output by thermodilution
• Calculation of derived parameters such as systemic/pulmonary vascular resistance
• Continuous SvO₂ monitoring to assess global oxygen extraction[23]

Evidence and Limitations

Despite its theoretical advantages, randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate improved outcomes with PAC-guided therapy.[24,25] The ESCAPE trial in heart failure patients and the PAC-Man trial in ICU patients found no benefit in outcomes despite changes in management based on PAC data.[26,27]

Limitations include:

• Invasive nature and associated complications
• Technical challenges in measurement and interpretation
• Poor correlation between PCWP and left ventricular end-diastolic pressure in certain conditions[28]

Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS)

Basic Principles and Applications

Point-of-care ultrasound has revolutionized hemodynamic assessment by providing real-time visualization of cardiac structures and function, volume status, and fluid responsiveness.[29] POCUS in critical care typically involves focused cardiac, lung, and vascular assessments.

Cardiac POCUS

Views and Technique

Standard views include:

• Parasternal long-axis and short-axis
• Apical four-chamber and five-chamber
• Subcostal four-chamber and IVC views[30]

These views allow assessment of:

• Left ventricular systolic function (qualitative and quantitative)
• Right ventricular size and function
• Valvular function
• Pericardial effusion
• Gross wall motion abnormalities[31]

Clinical Applications

Cardiac POCUS has multiple applications in critical care:

• Rapid assessment of ventricular function during shock
• Detection of pericardial effusion and tamponade
• Qualitative assessment of valvular function
• Evaluation of response to interventions[32]

IVC Ultrasonography

Physiological Basis

The inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter and its respiratory variation reflect right atrial pressure and can provide insights into volume status. In hypovolemia, the IVC is typically small with significant respiratory variation.[33]

Measurement Technique

IVC is visualized in the subcostal view, with measurements taken 2-3 cm from the right atrial junction. Both maximum (inspiratory) and minimum (expiratory) diameters are measured in spontaneously breathing patients, while the opposite applies in mechanically ventilated patients.[34]

Clinical Applications and Limitations

IVC collapsibility index (IVCCI) is calculated as:

IVCCI = (IVCmax - IVCmin) / IVCmax × 100%

In spontaneously breathing patients:

• IVCCI >40% suggests fluid responsiveness (CVP <10 mmHg)
• IVCCI <40% with small IVC diameter is indeterminate
• IVCCI <40% with large IVC diameter (>2.1 cm) suggests fluid non-responsiveness[35]

Limitations include:

• Influence of right heart function and tricuspid regurgitation
• Effect of mechanical ventilation and positive end-expiratory pressure
• Impact of increased intra-abdominal pressure
• Technical challenges in obese patients or those with abdominal dressings[36]

Lung Ultrasound

Basic Principles

Lung ultrasound allows assessment of extravascular lung water, pleural effusions, pneumothorax, and consolidation. The presence and distribution of B-lines (vertical hyperechoic lines arising from the pleural line) indicate interstitial edema.[37]

Clinical Applications

In hemodynamic assessment, lung ultrasound can:

• Detect pulmonary edema as a consequence of volume overload
• Identify pneumothorax or pleural effusion affecting hemodynamics
• Monitor response to diuretic therapy or fluid administration[38]

Integrated POCUS Protocols

Several integrated protocols combine cardiac, lung, and vascular ultrasound:

• FALLS (Fluid Administration Limited by Lung Sonography) protocol
• RUSH (Rapid Ultrasound in Shock and Hypotension) protocol
• FATE (Focus Assessed Transthoracic Echocardiography) protocol[39,40]

These protocols provide systematic approaches to assess undifferentiated shock and guide management decisions.

Comprehensive Echocardiography

Beyond POCUS: Comprehensive Assessment

Comprehensive echocardiography extends beyond basic POCUS to include:

• Quantitative assessment of ventricular function (ejection fraction, strain)
• Detailed valvular assessment with color Doppler and spectral Doppler
• Advanced hemodynamic calculations
• Assessment of diastolic function[41]

Doppler Echocardiography

Basic Principles

Doppler echocardiography uses the Doppler effect to measure blood flow velocities. Types include:

• Pulsed-wave Doppler: Measures velocity at specific locations
• Continuous-wave Doppler: Measures high velocities along the entire beam path
• Color Doppler: Provides color-coded representation of blood flow direction and velocity[42]

Hemodynamic Calculations

Doppler measurements allow calculation of:

• Stroke volume: LVOT area × LVOT VTI
• Cardiac output: Stroke volume × heart rate
• Valvular gradients and areas
• Estimation of pulmonary artery pressure via tricuspid regurgitation velocity[43]

Diastolic Function Assessment

Diastolic function assessment includes:

• Mitral inflow patterns (E and A waves)
• Tissue Doppler imaging of mitral annular motion (e' velocity)
• E/e' ratio as a surrogate for left atrial pressure
• Pulmonary vein flow patterns[44]

This assessment is particularly valuable in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and in differentiating cardiogenic from non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema.

Strain Imaging

Strain imaging (speckle tracking echocardiography) allows detection of subtle myocardial dysfunction before changes in ejection fraction are apparent. It has applications in:

• Septic cardiomyopathy
• Cardiotoxicity monitoring
• Right ventricular function assessment[45]

Advanced Hemodynamic Monitoring Systems

PiCCO (Pulse index Contour Continuous Cardiac Output)

Physiological Basis and Technical Aspects

PiCCO combines transpulmonary thermodilution and pulse contour analysis to provide continuous cardiac output monitoring with calibrated measurements. The system requires a central venous catheter for cold indicator injection and a thermistor-tipped arterial catheter (typically femoral) for detection.[46]

Measured Parameters

PiCCO provides various parameters:

• Cardiac output (CO)
• Stroke volume (SV)
• Systemic vascular resistance (SVR)
• Global end-diastolic volume (GEDV)
• Extravascular lung water (EVLW)
• Pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI)
• Contractility parameters (dp/dt, CFI)[47]

Clinical Applications

PiCCO is particularly useful in:

• Severe sepsis and septic shock
• ARDS and respiratory failure
• Post-cardiac surgery
• Burns and trauma with significant fluid shifts[48]

Limitations

Limitations include:

• Need for central venous and arterial access
• Requirement for periodic recalibration
• Reduced accuracy in severe aortic regurgitation, intra-aortic balloon pump, and aortic aneurysms
• Arterial compliance changes affecting pulse contour analysis[49]

Esophageal Doppler

Physiological Basis

Esophageal Doppler measures blood flow in the descending thoracic aorta using a flexible probe with a Doppler transducer at its tip. It provides continuous monitoring of stroke volume and cardiac output.[50]

Measured Parameters

Parameters include:

• Stroke distance
• Flow time corrected for heart rate (FTc)
• Peak velocity
• Calculated cardiac output (accounting for aortic cross-sectional area)[51]

Clinical Applications and Evidence

Esophageal Doppler-guided fluid therapy has shown benefits in:

• Reducing postoperative complications
• Shortening hospital stay
• Improving intestinal perfusion during major surgery[52]

Limitations

Limitations include:

• Need for sedation or patient cooperation
• Assumption of fixed aortic diameter
• Limited evidence in general critical care applications[53]

Non-invasive Cardiac Output Monitoring

Bioreactance and Bioimpedance

These techniques measure changes in thoracic electrical properties during cardiac cycles. Bioreactance analyzes phase shifts in electrical currents, while bioimpedance detects changes in impedance.[54]

Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitoring

USCOM uses continuous-wave Doppler ultrasound to measure aortic or pulmonary blood flow non-invasively.[55]

Limitations

Non-invasive techniques generally show variable agreement with reference methods and are sensitive to patient factors such as obesity, pulmonary disease, and electrode placement.[56]

Integration of Monitoring Modalities

Multimodal Approach

No single monitoring tool provides all the information needed for comprehensive hemodynamic assessment. Integration of multiple modalities allows for a more complete picture of cardiovascular function and volume status.[57]

Volume Status Assessment

Optimal approaches combine:

• Static parameters (CVP, GEDV)
• Dynamic parameters (PPV, SVV)
• Echocardiographic assessment (IVC, ventricular function)
• Clinical evaluation[58]

Cardiac Function Evaluation

Assessment of cardiac function should include:

• Contractility assessment (echocardiography, dp/dt)
• Preload evaluation (GEDV, CVP, echocardiography)
• Afterload assessment (SVR, arterial elastance)
• Tissue perfusion markers (lactate, ScvO₂)[59]

Goal-Directed Therapy

The concept of goal-directed therapy involves titrating interventions to specific hemodynamic targets. While early studies showed promising results, recent large trials (ProCESS, ARISE, ProMISe) did not demonstrate mortality benefits of protocol-based approaches in septic shock.[60,61,62]

Nevertheless, individualized hemodynamic optimization using appropriate monitoring remains a cornerstone of critical care practice.

Clinical Scenarios and Practical Applications

Septic Shock

In septic shock, a comprehensive approach includes:

• Initial assessment with POCUS for ventricular function and volume status
• Arterial line for continuous pressure monitoring and PPV
• Advanced monitoring in refractory cases
• Repeated assessments to guide fluid resuscitation and vasopressor/inotropic support[63]

Cardiogenic Shock

Management of cardiogenic shock requires:

• Detailed echocardiographic assessment of ventricular function, valves, and mechanical complications
• Continuous pressure monitoring
• Consideration of PAC in complex cases or when mechanical circulatory support is planned[64]

ARDS and Respiratory Failure

In ARDS, hemodynamic monitoring should focus on:

• Minimizing fluid overload (EVLW assessment)
• Right ventricular function evaluation
• Assessment of preload dependence during protective ventilation[65]

Trauma and Major Surgery

Priorities include:

• Rapid assessment of volume status
• Monitoring for occult bleeding
• Goal-directed fluid therapy to optimize perioperative outcomes[66]

Future Directions

Machine Learning and Predictive Analytics

Integration of multiple physiological parameters and clinical variables using machine learning algorithms shows promise for predicting hemodynamic instability before it becomes clinically apparent.[67]

Wearable and Continuous Monitoring Technologies

Advancement in non-invasive, continuous monitoring technologies may allow for earlier detection of deterioration and reduced need for invasive monitoring.[68]

Closed-Loop Systems

Automated systems that continuously monitor hemodynamic parameters and adjust interventions accordingly represent an exciting frontier in critical care.[69]

Practical Considerations and Implementation Challenges

Training and Competency

Successful implementation of advanced hemodynamic monitoring techniques requires adequate training and competency assessment. Professional societies have published recommendations for training in critical care ultrasonography and advanced hemodynamic monitoring.[81,82] A structured curriculum with theoretical knowledge, hands-on practice, and supervised interpretation is essential.

Cost-Effectiveness

The cost-effectiveness of various monitoring modalities must be considered, particularly in resource-limited settings. While some technologies require significant initial investment, they may reduce overall costs by optimizing resource utilization and improving outcomes.[83]

Protocol Development

Institution-specific protocols for hemodynamic monitoring and management can standardize care and improve outcomes. Protocols should be evidence-based, flexible enough to accommodate individual patient needs, and regularly updated to incorporate new evidence.[84]

Ethical Considerations

The potential benefits of invasive monitoring must be weighed against risks and patient comfort. The principle of non-maleficence should guide decision-making, particularly in patients with limited life expectancy or when interventions are unlikely to change management.[85]

Conclusion

Hemodynamic monitoring in critical care has evolved significantly, with a shift from static to dynamic parameters and increasing integration of imaging modalities. The ideal approach involves selecting appropriate monitoring tools based on individual patient characteristics and clinical context, while maintaining awareness of the inherent limitations of each technique. A multimodal approach combining complementary modalities provides the most comprehensive assessment of hemodynamic status and guides therapeutic interventions.

The cornerstone of effective hemodynamic monitoring is not the technology itself but the clinician's ability to integrate and interpret the data in the context of the patient's condition. Understanding the physiological principles underlying each monitoring technique and its limitations is essential for accurate interpretation and appropriate clinical decision-making.

Future directions in hemodynamic monitoring will likely focus on less invasive technologies, integration of artificial intelligence for data interpretation, and personalized approaches based on individual patient characteristics. Ongoing research and technological advances will continue to refine our approach to hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients, ultimately improving patient outcomes through more precise and timely interventions.

References

1. Vincent JL, Rhodes A, Perel A, et al. Clinical review: Update on hemodynamic monitoring - a consensus of 16. Crit Care. 2011;15(4):229.

2. Monnet X, Teboul JL. Transpulmonary thermodilution: advantages and limits. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):147.

3. Hiemstra B, Eck RJ, Koster G, et al. Clinical examination, critical care ultrasonography and outcomes in the critically ill: cohort profile of the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e017170.

4. Saugel B, Dueck R, Wagner JY. Measurement of blood pressure. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2014;28(4):309-322.

5. Bartels K, Esper SA, Thiele RH. Blood Pressure Monitoring for the Anesthesiologist: A Practical Review. Anesth Analg. 2016;122(6):1866-1879.

6. Romagnoli S, Ricci Z, Quattrone D, et al. Accuracy of invasive arterial pressure monitoring in cardiovascular patients: an observational study. Crit Care. 2014;18(6):644.

7. Lehman LW, Saeed M, Talmor D, Mark R, Malhotra A. Methods of blood pressure measurement in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(1):34-40.

8. Wilkinson IB, McEniery CM. Arterial stiffness, endothelial function and novel pharmacological approaches. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2004;31(11):795-799.

9. Scheer B, Perel A, Pfeiffer UJ. Clinical review: complications and risk factors of peripheral arterial catheters used for haemodynamic monitoring in anaesthesia and intensive care medicine. Crit Care. 2002;6(3):199-204.

10. Magder S. Central venous pressure monitoring. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2006;12(3):219-227.

11. Magder S. Central venous pressure: A useful but not so simple measurement. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(8):2224-2227.

12. Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest. 2008;134(1):172-178.

13. Eskesen TG, Wetterslev M, Perner A. Systematic review including re-analyses of 1148 individual data sets of central venous pressure as a predictor of fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(3):324-332.

14. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R. Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? An updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(7):1774-1781.

15. Berlin DA, Bakker J. Starling curves and central venous pressure. Crit Care. 2015;19:55.

16. De Backer D, Vincent JL. Should we measure the central venous pressure to guide fluid management? Ten answers to 10 questions. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):43.

17. Michard F, Teboul JL. Using heart-lung interactions to assess fluid responsiveness during mechanical ventilation. Crit Care. 2000;4(5):282-289.

18. Monnet X, Marik PE, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6(1):111.

19. Yang X, Du B. Does pulse pressure variation predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2014;18(6):650.

20. Monnet X, Bleibtreu A, Ferré A, et al. Passive leg-raising and end-expiratory occlusion tests perform better than pulse pressure variation in patients with low respiratory system compliance. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(1):152-157.

21. De Backer D, Heenen S, Piagnerelli M, Koch M, Vincent JL. Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(4):517-523.

22. Rajaram SS, Desai NK, Kalra A, et al. Pulmonary artery catheters for adult patients in intensive care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):CD003408.

23. Chatterjee K. The Swan-Ganz catheters: past, present, and future. A viewpoint. Circulation. 2009;119(1):147-152.

24. Shah MR, Hasselblad V, Stevenson LW, et al. Impact of the pulmonary artery catheter in critically ill patients: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 2005;294(13):1664-1670.

25. Harvey S, Harrison DA, Singer M, et al. Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9484):472-477.

26. Binanay C, Califf RM, Hasselblad V, et al. Evaluation study of congestive heart failure and pulmonary artery catheterization effectiveness: the ESCAPE trial. JAMA. 2005;294(13):1625-1633.

27. Harvey S, Harrison DA, Singer M, et al. Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9484):472-477.

28. Raper R, Sibbald WJ. Misled by the wedge? The Swan-Ganz catheter and left ventricular preload. Chest. 1986;89(3):427-434.

29. Mayo PH, Beaulieu Y, Doelken P, et al. American College of Chest Physicians/La Société de Réanimation de Langue Française statement on competence in critical care ultrasonography. Chest. 2009;135(4):1050-1060.

30. Via G, Hussain A, Wells M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations for focused cardiac ultrasound. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014;27(7):683.e1-683.e33.

31. Spencer KT, Kimura BJ, Korcarz CE, Pellikka PA, Rahko PS, Siegel RJ. Focused cardiac ultrasound: recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26(6):567-581.

32. Levitov A, Frankel HL, Blaivas M, et al. Guidelines for the appropriate use of bedside general and cardiac ultrasonography in the evaluation of critically ill patients-part II: cardiac ultrasonography. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(6):1206-1227.

33. Dipti A, Soucy Z, Surana A, Chandra S. Role of inferior vena cava diameter in assessment of volume status: a meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30(8):1414-1419.e1.

34. Rudski LG, Lai WW, Afilalo J, et al. Guidelines for the echocardiographic assessment of the right heart in adults: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography endorsed by the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23(7):685-713.

35. Zhang Z, Xu X, Ye S, Xu L. Ultrasonographic measurement of the respiratory variation in the inferior vena cava diameter is predictive of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014;40(5):845-853.

36. Ilyas A, Ishtiaq W, Assad S, et al. Correlation of IVC diameter and collapsibility index with central venous pressure in the assessment of intravascular volume in critically ill patients. Cureus. 2017;9(2):e1025.

37. Lichtenstein DA. BLUE-protocol and FALLS-protocol: two applications of lung ultrasound in the critically ill. Chest. 2015;147(6):1659-1670.

38. Volpicelli G, Elbarbary M, Blaivas M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(4):577-591.

39. Perera P, Mailhot T, Riley D, Mandavia D. The RUSH exam: Rapid Ultrasound in SHock in the evaluation of the critically ill. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2010;28(1):29-56. Squara P, Denjean D, Estagnasie P, Brusset A, Dib JC, Dubois C. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(7):1191-1194.

40. Teboul JL, Saugel B, Cecconi M, et al. Less invasive hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(9):1350-1359.

41. Monnet X, Teboul JL. Assessment of fluid responsiveness: recent advances. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24(3):190-195.

42. Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(12):1795-1815.

43. ARISE Investigators, ANZICS Clinical Trials Group, Peake SL, et al. Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(16):1496-1506.

44. ProCESS Investigators, Yealy DM, Kellum JA, et al. A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(18):1683-1693.

45. Mouncey PR, Osborn TM, Power GS, et al. Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1301-1311.

46. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(3):304-377.

47. van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM, et al. Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;136(16):e232-e268.

48. Vieillard-Baron A, Matthay M, Teboul JL, et al. Experts' opinion on management of hemodynamics in ARDS patients: focus on the effects of mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(5):739-749.

49. Malbrain MLNG, Van Regenmortel N, Saugel B, et al. Principles of fluid management and stewardship in septic shock: it is time to consider the four D's and the four phases of fluid therapy. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):66.

50. Zimmerman JE, Kramer AA, McNair DS, Malila FM, Shaffer VL. Intensive care unit length of stay: Benchmarking based on Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(10):2517-2529.

51. Saugel B, Hoppe P, Khanna AK. Automated continuous noninvasive ward monitoring: validation of measurement systems is the real challenge. Anesthesiology. 2020;132(3):407-410.

52. Joosten A, Alexander B, Delaporte A, et al. Perioperative goal directed therapy using automated closed-loop fluid management: the future? Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2015;47(5):517-523.

53. De Backer D, Bakker J, Cecconi M, et al. Alternatives to the Swan-Ganz catheter. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(6):730-741.

54. Cherpanath TGV, Hirsch A, Geerts BF, et al. Predicting fluid responsiveness by passive leg raising: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 clinical trials. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(5):981-991.

55. Lakhal K, Ehrmann S, Perrotin D, et al. Fluid challenge: tracking changes in cardiac output with blood pressure monitoring (invasive or non-invasive). Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(11):1953-1962.

56. Saugel B, Kouz K, Scheeren TWL. The '5 Ts' of perioperative goal-directed haemodynamic therapy. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123(2):103-107.

57. Monnet X, Cipriani F, Camous L, et al. The passive leg raising test to guide fluid removal in critically ill patients. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6(1):46.

58. Mahjoub Y, Lejeune V, Muller L, et al. Evaluation of pulse pressure variation validity criteria in critically ill patients: a prospective observational multicentre point-prevalence study. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112(4):681-685.

59. Lamia B, Ochagavia A, Monnet X, Chemla D, Richard C, Teboul JL. Echocardiographic prediction of volume responsiveness in critically ill patients with spontaneously breathing activity. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(7):1125-1132.

60. Douglas IS, Alapat PM, Corl KA, et al. Fluid Response Evaluation in Sepsis Hypotension and Shock: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Chest. 2020;158(4):1431-1445.

61. Bentzer P, Griesdale DE, Boyd J, MacLean K, Sirounis D, Ayas NT. Will this hemodynamically unstable patient respond to a bolus of intravenous fluids? JAMA. 2016;316(12):1298-1309.

62. Toscani L, Aya HD, Antonakaki D, et al. What is the impact of the fluid challenge technique on diagnosis of fluid responsiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):207.

63. Monnet X, Marik P, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(12):1935-1947.

64. Expert Round Table on Echocardiography in ICU. International consensus statement on training standards for advanced critical care echocardiography. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(5):654-666.

65. Levitov A, Frankel HL, Blaivas M, et al. Guidelines for the appropriate use of bedside general and cardiac ultrasonography in the evaluation of critically ill patients-part I: general ultrasonography. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(6):1188-1205.

66. Tan HL, Wijesinghe M, Aitken L. The financial impact of cardiac ultrasound compared to transit-time flow measurement for cardiac surgery: A systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75(5):961-974.

67. Zampieri FG, Damiani LP, Bakker J, et al. Effects of a resuscitation strategy targeting peripheral perfusion status versus serum lactate levels among patients with septic shock: a Bayesian reanalysis of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(4):423-429.

68. Truog RD, Brett AS, Frader J. The problem with futility. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(23):1560-1564.

69. Monge García MI, Guijo González P, Gracia Romero M, et al. Effects of fluid administration on arterial load in septic shock patients. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(7):1247-1255.

70. Ait-Oufella H, Bige N, Boelle PY, et al. Capillary refill time exploration during septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(7):958-964.

71. Ait-Oufella H, Lemoinne S, Boelle PY, et al. Mottling score predicts survival in septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(5):801-807.

72. Hernández G, Ospina-Tascón GA, Damiani LP, et al. Effect of a resuscitation strategy targeting peripheral perfusion status vs serum lactate levels on 28-day mortality among patients with septic shock: the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321(7):654-664.

73. Scolletta S, Franchi F, Romagnoli S, et al. Comparison between Doppler-echocardiography and uncalibrated pulse contour method for cardiac output measurement: a multicenter observational study. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(7):1370-1379.

74. Jensen MB, Sloth E, Larsen KM, Schmidt MB. Transthoracic echocardiography for cardiopulmonary monitoring in intensive care. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2004;21(9):700-707.

75. Lancellotti P, Price S, Edvardsen T, et al. The use of echocardiography in acute cardiovascular care: recommendations of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2015;4(1):3-5.

76. Otto CM. Textbook of Clinical Echocardiography. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2018.

77. Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28(1):1-39.e14.

78. Nagueh SF, Smiseth OA, Appleton CP, et al. Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016;29(4):277-314.

79. Sanfilippo F, Corredor C, Fletcher N, et al. Diastolic dysfunction and mortality in septic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(6):1004-1013.

80. Monnet X, Teboul JL. Transpulmonary thermodilution: advantages and limits. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):147.

81. Litton E, Morgan M. The PiCCO monitor: a review. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2012;40(3):393-409.

82. Sakka SG, Reuter DA, Perel A. The transpulmonary thermodilution technique. J Clin Monit Comput. 2012;26(5):347-353.

83. Monnet X, Persichini R, Ktari M, Jozwiak M, Richard C, Teboul JL. Precision of the transpulmonary thermodilution measurements. Crit Care. 2011;15(4):R204.

84. Singer M. Esophageal Doppler monitoring of aortic blood flow: beat-by-beat cardiac output monitoring. Int Anesthesiol Clin. 1993;31(3):99-125.

85. Dark PM, Singer M. The validity of trans-esophageal Doppler ultrasonography as a measure of cardiac output in critically ill adults. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(11):2060-2066.

86. Chappell D, Jacob M, Hofmann-Kiefer K, Conzen P, Rehm M. A rational approach to perioperative fluid management. Anesthesiology. 2008;109(4):723-740.

87. Schober P, Loer SA, Schwarte LA. Perioperative hemodynamic monitoring with transesophageal Doppler technology. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(2):340-353.

88. Keren H, Burkhoff D, Squara P. Evaluation of a noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring system based on thoracic bioreactance. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2007;293(1):H583-H589.

89. Thom O, Taylor DM, Wolfe RE, Cade J, Myles P, Krum H, Wolfe R. Comparison of a supra-sternal cardiac output monitor (USCOM) with the pulmonary artery catheter. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103(6):800-804.