The Ventilator in Shock: Optimizing Mechanical Ventilation for Hemodynamic Performance in Critical Care

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Mechanical ventilation profoundly influences cardiovascular physiology through complex cardiopulmonary interactions. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for optimizing hemodynamic management in critically ill patients with shock.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive review of ventilator-induced hemodynamic effects and evidence-based strategies for ventilatory management across different shock phenotypes.

Methods: Narrative review of current literature on cardiopulmonary interactions, hemodynamic effects of mechanical ventilation, and ventilatory strategies in shock states.

Key Findings: Positive pressure ventilation creates a "hemodynamic double-edged sword" - beneficial in cardiogenic shock through afterload reduction, but potentially harmful in hypovolemic and obstructive shock through preload reduction. Ventilator settings must be individualized based on shock phenotype and underlying pathophysiology.

Conclusions: The ventilator functions as both a respiratory and hemodynamic intervention. Mastery of cardiopulmonary interactions enables intensivists to leverage mechanical ventilation as a therapeutic tool beyond gas exchange optimization.

Keywords: mechanical ventilation, hemodynamics, shock, cardiopulmonary interactions, critical care

Introduction

The mechanical ventilator has evolved far beyond its traditional role as a device for gas exchange. In the modern intensive care unit (ICU), the ventilator functions as a powerful hemodynamic machine capable of profoundly influencing cardiovascular performance.¹ This paradigm shift from viewing ventilation as purely pulmonary to recognizing its systemic cardiovascular effects represents a fundamental advancement in critical care medicine.

The concept of cardiopulmonary interactions was first described by Cournand and Richards in the 1940s, leading to their Nobel Prize recognition.² However, the clinical implications of these interactions in shock management have only recently gained widespread appreciation among intensivists. Understanding how positive pressure ventilation affects preload, afterload, contractility, and heart rate variability is essential for optimizing patient outcomes in shock states.

This review examines the physiological basis of ventilator-induced hemodynamic effects and provides evidence-based strategies for ventilatory management across different shock phenotypes, with particular emphasis on practical clinical applications and common pitfalls.

Physiological Foundations of Cardiopulmonary Interactions

The Hemodynamic Effects of Positive Pressure Ventilation

Spontaneous breathing creates negative intrathoracic pressure during inspiration, enhancing venous return and left ventricular (LV) filling. Conversely, positive pressure ventilation reverses this relationship, creating a complex cascade of cardiovascular effects.³

Preload Effects

Positive pressure ventilation reduces venous return through multiple mechanisms:

Direct compression of venae cavae within the thoracic cavity
Increased right atrial pressure opposing venous return gradient
Hepatic congestion reducing splanchnic venous drainage
Decreased respiratory pump function eliminating the normal inspiratory augmentation of venous return⁴

The magnitude of preload reduction correlates directly with applied positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and tidal volume, with effects becoming clinically significant when PEEP exceeds 10-15 cmH₂O in normovolemic patients.⁵

Afterload Effects

The relationship between intrathoracic pressure and LV afterload represents one of the most clinically relevant cardiopulmonary interactions:

Reduced transmural pressure: Increased intrathoracic pressure directly reduces LV transmural pressure (LV pressure - intrathoracic pressure), effectively decreasing afterload⁶
Impedance matching: Positive pressure ventilation can improve ventriculo-arterial coupling in failing hearts
Wall stress reduction: Following Laplace's law, reduced transmural pressure decreases myocardial wall stress and oxygen consumption⁷

Right Heart-Left Heart Interactions

Ventricular interdependence becomes pronounced during positive pressure ventilation:

Septal shift: Increased RV filling pressure can shift the interventricular septum leftward, reducing LV compliance
Pericardial constraint: Fixed pericardial volume creates competitive filling between ventricles
Pulmonary vascular effects: PEEP can increase pulmonary vascular resistance, particularly in diseased lungs⁸

Clinical Pearl #1: The "Hemodynamic Double-Edged Sword"

Positive pressure ventilation simultaneously reduces both preload and afterload. The net hemodynamic effect depends on which chamber is the limiting factor: in preload-dependent states, the negative effects dominate; in afterload-sensitive conditions, the benefits prevail.

Ventilatory Management by Shock Phenotype

Cardiogenic Shock: Leveraging Afterload Reduction

In cardiogenic shock, the failing left ventricle operates on the flat portion of the Frank-Starling curve, where afterload reduction provides disproportionate benefit compared to preload optimization.⁹

Physiological Rationale

The failing LV in cardiogenic shock exhibits:

Elevated wall stress and oxygen consumption
Impaired contractile reserve
Sensitivity to afterload changes
Often adequate or elevated filling pressures

Positive pressure ventilation addresses these pathophysiological derangements by:

Reducing LV transmural pressure and wall stress
Decreasing myocardial oxygen consumption
Improving stroke volume through afterload reduction
Reducing work of breathing and associated oxygen consumption¹⁰

Evidence-Based Ventilatory Strategies

PEEP Optimization:

Target PEEP 10-15 cmH₂O (higher than traditional lung-protective strategies)
Monitor hemodynamic response to PEEP titration
Consider higher PEEP levels (15-20 cmH₂O) in severe LV dysfunction¹¹

Tidal Volume Selection:

Maintain lung-protective ventilation (6-8 mL/kg predicted body weight)
Balance between minimizing VILI and optimizing hemodynamics
Consider slightly higher tidal volumes (8 mL/kg) if hemodynamically beneficial¹²

Inspiratory Time and I:E Ratio:

Prolonged inspiratory time can enhance afterload reduction
I:E ratio of 1:1 to 1:2 may be optimal
Monitor for auto-PEEP development¹³

Clinical Implementation

Hemodynamic Monitoring:

Utilize advanced hemodynamic monitoring (pulmonary artery catheter, arterial pulse contour analysis)
Target parameters: CI >2.2 L/min/m², PCWP 15-18 mmHg, SVR <1200 dynes·s·cm⁻⁵
Serial echocardiographic assessment of LV function and filling pressures¹⁴

Ventilator Titration Protocol:

Establish baseline hemodynamics
Incremental PEEP increases (2-3 cmH₂O steps)
Allow 15-20 minutes equilibration between changes
Assess cardiac output, blood pressure, and tissue perfusion markers
Identify optimal PEEP for hemodynamic performance¹⁵

Clinical Pearl #2: The "Cardiogenic PEEP Sweet Spot"

In cardiogenic shock, there's often a specific PEEP level (usually 10-15 cmH₂O) where hemodynamic benefit is maximized. Below this level, you miss the afterload reduction benefit; above it, excessive preload reduction becomes detrimental.

Hypovolemic Shock: Minimizing Preload Reduction

Hypovolemic shock represents the clinical scenario where positive pressure ventilation poses the greatest hemodynamic risk. The combination of reduced circulating volume and impaired venous return creates a perfect storm for cardiovascular collapse.¹⁶

Pathophysiological Considerations

In hypovolemic shock:

Patients operate on the steep portion of the Frank-Starling curve
Cardiac output is preload-dependent
Compensatory mechanisms (tachycardia, vasoconstriction) are already maximized
Any further reduction in venous return can precipitate cardiovascular collapse¹⁷

Ventilatory Strategy: The "Gentle Ventilation" Approach

PEEP Minimization:

Use lowest PEEP consistent with adequate oxygenation (typically 5-8 cmH₂O)
Consider PEEP <5 cmH₂O in severe hypovolemia
Prioritize volume resuscitation over PEEP for oxygenation¹⁸

Tidal Volume Reduction:

Target 6 mL/kg predicted body weight (strict lung protection)
Consider further reduction to 4-5 mL/kg in severe shock
Accept permissive hypercapnia if necessary¹⁹

Respiratory Rate and Minute Ventilation:

Minimize minute ventilation to reduce mean intrathoracic pressure
Use higher respiratory rates (25-35 breaths/min) to maintain adequate CO₂ elimination
Short inspiratory times to minimize sustained positive pressure effects²⁰

Pre-intubation Optimization

Fluid Resuscitation:

Aggressive volume loading before intubation when possible
Target CVP 8-12 mmHg or dynamic preload indices
Use balanced crystalloids or colloids based on clinical scenario²¹

Vasopressor Preparation:

Have vasopressors immediately available
Consider prophylactic low-dose norepinephrine
Prepare for immediate post-intubation hypotension management²²

Induction Agent Selection:

Avoid agents with significant negative inotropic effects
Consider etomidate or ketamine in hemodynamically unstable patients
Reduce induction doses by 30-50%²³

Clinical Pearl #3: The "Post-Intubation Hypotension Reflex"

If a patient becomes hypotensive immediately after intubation, think "reduced preload" first. The immediate interventions are: fluid bolus, reduce PEEP, and start/increase vasopressors. Don't waste time with extensive diagnostic workup.

Obstructive Shock: Navigating Pericardial and Vascular Constraints

Obstructive shock presents unique challenges for ventilatory management, as the underlying pathophysiology often involves fixed constraints to cardiac filling or output. Common causes include cardiac tamponade, massive pulmonary embolism, and tension pneumothorax.²⁴

Cardiac Tamponade and Ventilation

In cardiac tamponade, the pericardium creates a fixed total cardiac volume, making ventricular interdependence particularly pronounced:

Pathophysiological Interactions:

Fixed pericardial constraint eliminates the normal compensatory mechanisms
Positive pressure ventilation exacerbates the already impaired venous return
Even small reductions in preload can cause profound hemodynamic compromise²⁵

Ventilatory Management:

Minimize PEEP (often 0-5 cmH₂O)
Use lowest possible tidal volumes
Consider pressure support ventilation to preserve some spontaneous breathing
Urgent pericardiocentesis takes precedence over ventilatory optimization²⁶

Massive Pulmonary Embolism

The hemodynamic effects of mechanical ventilation in massive PE are complex and depend on the degree of RV dysfunction:

Acute Phase Management:

Avoid high PEEP levels that increase pulmonary vascular resistance
Target PEEP 5-8 cmH₂O for adequate oxygenation
Consider inhaled pulmonary vasodilators (nitric oxide, epoprostenol)
Optimize RV preload with careful fluid management²⁷

Post-Thrombolysis Considerations:

Monitor for hemodynamic improvement
Gradually optimize ventilator settings as pulmonary pressures normalize
Transition to lung-protective ventilation strategies²⁸

Distributive Shock: Balancing Multiple Pathophysiological Targets

Distributive shock, primarily septic shock, presents a complex hemodynamic profile that may benefit from individualized ventilatory management based on the predominant pathophysiological mechanism.²⁹

Early Septic Shock (Hyperdynamic Phase)

Characteristics:

High cardiac output, low systemic vascular resistance
Adequate or elevated preload
Preserved LV function in most cases

Ventilatory Strategy:

Standard lung-protective ventilation (PEEP 8-12 cmH₂O, TV 6-8 mL/kg)
Focus on minimizing VILI rather than hemodynamic optimization
Consider higher PEEP if ARDS develops³⁰

Late Septic Shock (Myocardial Depression)

Characteristics:

Reduced cardiac contractility
Elevated filling pressures
Afterload sensitivity

Modified Approach:

Consider moderate PEEP increases (10-15 cmH₂O) for afterload reduction
Monitor hemodynamic response closely
Balance VILI prevention with hemodynamic support³¹

Clinical Pearl #4: The "Sepsis Ventilator Pivot"

In septic shock, your ventilatory strategy should evolve with the patient's hemodynamic profile. Early shock requires standard lung protection; late shock with myocardial depression may benefit from the "cardiogenic shock" approach.

Advanced Concepts and Emerging Strategies

Dynamic Assessment of Cardiopulmonary Interactions

Traditional static hemodynamic measurements provide limited insight into the dynamic nature of cardiopulmonary interactions. Advanced monitoring techniques enable real-time assessment of ventilator-heart interactions:

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

These dynamic preload indices can guide both fluid management and ventilatory optimization:

PPV >13% or SVV >13%: Suggests preload responsiveness and potential benefit from volume loading
Decreasing PPV/SVV with PEEP increases: May indicate optimal PEEP level
Limitations: Require sinus rhythm, controlled ventilation, and tidal volumes >8 mL/kg³²

Echocardiographic Assessment

Real-time echocardiography provides invaluable information about cardiopulmonary interactions:

Ventricular interdependence: Septal shift patterns during respiratory cycle
Preload assessment: IVC collapsibility and left atrial size
RV function: TAPSE, RV S', and estimated pulmonary pressures
Response to interventions: Real-time assessment of ventilator changes³³

Transpulmonary Thermodilution

Advanced hemodynamic monitoring with transpulmonary thermodilution provides comprehensive assessment:

Global end-diastolic index (GEDI): Superior preload indicator compared to CVP or PCWP
Extravascular lung water index (ELWI): Guides fluid management and PEEP titration
Cardiac function index (CFI): Assesses cardiac contractility independent of loading conditions³⁴

Clinical Pearl #5: The "Dynamic Hemodynamic Trinity"

Combine PPV/SVV, bedside echo, and advanced hemodynamic monitoring for comprehensive assessment. No single parameter tells the whole story - it's the integration that guides optimal management.

Personalized PEEP Titration Strategies

The concept of "one-size-fits-all" PEEP is obsolete in modern critical care. Several strategies exist for individualizing PEEP selection:

Hemodynamic-Based PEEP Titration

The Cardiovascular Response Method:

Start with PEEP 5 cmH₂O
Increase PEEP in 2-3 cmH₂O increments
Assess hemodynamic response at each level
Select PEEP that optimizes cardiac output while maintaining adequate oxygenation³⁵

Physiological PEEP Titration

Respiratory Mechanics Approach:

Best compliance method: PEEP level with maximal respiratory system compliance
Stress index method: Targeting stress index between 0.9-1.1
Electrical impedance tomography: Regional ventilation optimization³⁶

Integrated Approach

The optimal strategy likely combines multiple physiological targets:

Adequate oxygenation (PaO₂/FiO₂ >200)
Optimal respiratory mechanics (plateau pressure <30 cmH₂O)
Hemodynamic stability or improvement
Minimal overdistension on imaging³⁷

Ventilatory Support Modes and Hemodynamics

The choice of ventilatory mode can significantly impact cardiopulmonary interactions:

Controlled vs. Assisted Ventilation

Controlled Mechanical Ventilation:

Predictable hemodynamic effects
Easier to titrate for optimal cardiopulmonary interactions
May be necessary in severe shock states
Risk of respiratory muscle atrophy³⁸

Pressure Support Ventilation:

Preserves some respiratory pump function
More variable hemodynamic effects
May be beneficial in weaning phase
Requires adequate respiratory drive³⁹

High-Frequency Ventilation

In selected cases, high-frequency ventilation strategies may offer hemodynamic advantages:

Lower mean airway pressures
Reduced impact on venous return
Potential benefit in RV failure
Limited evidence base in shock states⁴⁰

Clinical Implementation: Protocols and Algorithms

The SHOCK-VENT Protocol

A systematic approach to ventilatory management in shock:

S - Shock phenotype identification H - Hemodynamic assessment and monitoring
O - Oxygenation optimization C - Cardiovascular parameter targeting K - Kinetic monitoring of response

V - Ventilator setting individualization E - Evaluation of cardiopulmonary interactions N - Neurological and metabolic considerations T - Titration and reassessment⁴¹

Bedside Decision-Making Algorithm

Step 1: Rapid Shock Classification

Cardiogenic: Use hemodynamic optimization approach
Hypovolemic: Use gentle ventilation strategy
Obstructive: Minimize positive pressure effects
Distributive: Individualize based on phase and cardiac function

Step 2: Initial Ventilator Settings

Apply phenotype-specific initial settings
Establish baseline hemodynamic measurements
Ensure adequate monitoring capability

Step 3: Systematic Titration

Make single parameter changes
Allow adequate equilibration time (15-20 minutes)
Assess multiple hemodynamic endpoints
Document response patterns

Step 4: Reassessment and Adjustment

Continuous monitoring of key parameters
Regular reassessment of shock phenotype
Adjustment based on evolving clinical picture⁴²

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

The "PEEP Paralysis" Phenomenon

Problem: Excessive focus on lung-protective PEEP levels without considering hemodynamic implications.

Solution: Always assess hemodynamic response to PEEP changes. The "protective" PEEP that causes cardiovascular collapse is not truly protective.

The "Post-Intubation Panic"

Problem: Failure to anticipate and prepare for predictable hemodynamic changes after intubation.

Solution: Pre-intubation checklist including volume status assessment, vasopressor preparation, and immediate post-intubation management plan.

The "One-Size-Fits-All" Mistake

Problem: Applying uniform ventilatory strategies regardless of underlying pathophysiology.

Solution: Systematic shock phenotype assessment and individualized ventilatory approach based on underlying pathophysiology.

Clinical Pearl #6: The "Ventilator Hemodynamic Checklist"

Before making any ventilator change in a shocked patient, ask: 1) What is the shock phenotype? 2) How will this change affect preload? 3) How will this affect afterload? 4) Do I have adequate monitoring to assess the response?

Monitoring and Assessment

Essential Hemodynamic Parameters

Basic Monitoring

Continuous arterial blood pressure monitoring
Central venous pressure (with limitations understood)
Heart rate and rhythm
Urine output and lactate levels⁴³

Advanced Monitoring

Cardiac output measurement (thermodilution, pulse contour, or echo-derived)
Dynamic preload indices (PPV, SVV when applicable)
Mixed or central venous oxygen saturation
Tissue perfusion markers⁴⁴

Respiratory Monitoring

Plateau pressure and driving pressure
Respiratory system compliance
Auto-PEEP assessment
Arterial blood gas analysis⁴⁵

Integration of Monitoring Data

The key to successful ventilatory management in shock lies in the integration of respiratory and hemodynamic data:

The Hemodynamic-Respiratory Dashboard

Real-time Integration:

Cardiac output trends with ventilator changes
Blood pressure response to PEEP titration
Respiratory mechanics evolution
Gas exchange optimization⁴⁶

Trending and Pattern Recognition

Response Patterns:

Immediate responses (0-5 minutes): Direct hemodynamic effects
Short-term responses (15-30 minutes): Compensatory mechanisms
Long-term responses (hours): Organ function and metabolic changes⁴⁷

Special Populations and Considerations

Right Heart Failure and Cor Pulmonale

In patients with right heart failure, ventilatory management requires special consideration:

Pathophysiology:

Elevated pulmonary vascular resistance
RV-PA uncoupling
Sensitivity to increases in transpulmonary pressure⁴⁸

Management Strategy:

Minimize PEEP levels that increase PVR
Consider recruitment maneuvers carefully
Use inhaled vasodilators when appropriate
Target optimal RV preload without overdistension⁴⁹

Elderly Patients

Age-related changes in cardiovascular physiology affect ventilatory management:

Considerations:

Reduced cardiovascular reserve
Increased sensitivity to preload changes
Higher baseline afterload
Comorbidity interactions⁵⁰

Modified Approach:

More conservative PEEP titration
Enhanced monitoring requirements
Lower threshold for hemodynamic support
Attention to polypharmacy interactions⁵¹

Pregnancy-Related Shock

Physiological changes in pregnancy significantly alter cardiopulmonary interactions:

Pregnancy Adaptations:

Increased blood volume and cardiac output
Reduced systemic vascular resistance
Elevated oxygen consumption
Aortocaval compression concerns⁵²

Ventilatory Modifications:

Left lateral positioning considerations
Higher oxygen requirements
Modified normal values for hemodynamic parameters
Fetal monitoring considerations⁵³

Future Directions and Emerging Technologies

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

The integration of AI technologies promises to revolutionize ventilatory management in shock:

Potential Applications:

Real-time optimization of ventilator settings based on multiple physiological inputs
Predictive modeling for hemodynamic responses
Pattern recognition for early identification of deterioration
Personalized treatment algorithms⁵⁴

Advanced Monitoring Technologies

Emerging Technologies:

Continuous cardiac output monitoring using pulse wave analysis
Advanced echocardiographic techniques for automated assessment
Biomarker integration for personalized therapy
Wearable monitoring for continuous physiological assessment⁵⁵

Personalized Medicine Approaches

Future Directions:

Genetic markers for drug and ventilator response
Metabolomic profiling for individualized management
Precision medicine algorithms for shock management
Integration of multi-omics data⁵⁶

Conclusion

The mechanical ventilator represents one of the most powerful hemodynamic interventions available in the ICU. Understanding and leveraging cardiopulmonary interactions enables intensivists to optimize both respiratory and cardiovascular function simultaneously. The key principles include:

Phenotype-based management: Different shock types require different ventilatory approaches
Dynamic assessment: Continuous monitoring and titration based on physiological response
Integrated thinking: Simultaneous consideration of respiratory and hemodynamic goals
Individualized care: Personalization based on patient-specific factors and responses

As our understanding of cardiopulmonary interactions continues to evolve, the integration of advanced monitoring technologies and precision medicine approaches will further enhance our ability to optimize ventilatory management in shock. The ventilator's role as both a respiratory and hemodynamic device will continue to be central to critical care practice.

The future of critical care lies in the seamless integration of respiratory and cardiovascular support, with the ventilator serving as the cornerstone of this integrated approach. Mastery of these concepts and their clinical application represents an essential skill for the modern intensivist.

Key Clinical Pearls Summary

The Hemodynamic Double-Edged Sword: Positive pressure ventilation reduces both preload and afterload - the net effect depends on the limiting factor.
The Cardiogenic PEEP Sweet Spot: In cardiogenic shock, optimal PEEP (10-15 cmH₂O) maximizes afterload reduction benefits.
The Post-Intubation Hypotension Reflex: Immediate post-intubation hypotension = reduced preload. Treat with fluids, lower PEEP, and vasopressors.
The Sepsis Ventilator Pivot: Ventilatory strategy should evolve with septic shock phases - standard protection early, afterload reduction in myocardial depression.
The Dynamic Hemodynamic Trinity: Integrate PPV/SVV, bedside echo, and advanced monitoring for comprehensive assessment.
The Ventilator Hemodynamic Checklist: Before any ventilator change, consider shock phenotype, preload effects, afterload effects, and monitoring adequacy.

References

Pinsky MR. Cardiovascular issues in respiratory care. Chest. 2005;128(5 Suppl 2):592S-597S.
Cournand A, Richards DW. Cardiac output in relation to unilobar pneumonia in man. J Clin Invest. 1942;21(6):739-746.
Magder S. Clinical usefulness of respiratory variations in arterial pressure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;169(2):151-155.
Michard F, Teboul JL. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121(6):2000-2008.
Monnet X, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising: five rules, not a drop of fluid! Crit Care. 2015;19:18.
Pinsky MR. Hemodynamic effects of ventilation and ventilatory maneuvers. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2012;18(1):35-41.
Luecke T, Pelosi P. Clinical review: Positive end-expiratory pressure and cardiac output. Crit Care. 2005;9(6):607-621.
Jardin F, Vieillard-Baron A. Is there a safe plateau pressure in ARDS? The right heart perspective. JAMA. 2007;298(10):1182-1184.
Thiele H, Ohman EM, de Waha-Thiele S, Zeymer U, Desch S. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an update 2019. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(32):2671-2683.
Dhainaut JF, Brunet F. Treatment of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Am J Cardiol. 1992;70(10):1C-6C.
Jardin F, Delorme G, Hardy A, Auvert B, Beauchet A, Bourdarias JP. Reevaluation of hemodynamic consequences of positive pressure ventilation: emphasis on cyclic right ventricular afterloading by mechanical lung inflation. Anesthesiology. 1990;72(6):966-970.
Amato MB, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(8):747-755.
Talmor D, Sarge T, Malhotra A, et al. Mechanical ventilation guided by esophageal pressure in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(20):2095-2104.
Vignon P, Repesse X, Begot E, et al. Comparison of echocardiographic indices used to predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(8):1022-1032.
Gattinoni L, Caironi P, Cressoni M, et al. Lung recruitment in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(17):1775-1786.
Marik PE, Monnet X, Teboul JL. Hemodynamic parameters to guide fluid therapy. Ann Intensive Care. 2011;1(1):1.
Vincent JL, De Backer D. Circulatory shock. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(18):1726-1734.
Brower RG, Matthay MA, Morris A, Schoenfeld D, Thompson BT, Wheeler A. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(18):1301-1308.
Nin N, Muriel A, Peñuelas O, et al. Severe hypercapnia and outcome of mechanically ventilated patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(2):200-208.
Marini JJ, Ravenscraft SA. Mean airway pressure: physiologic determinants and clinical importance--Part 1: Physiologic determinants and measurements. Crit Care Med. 1992;20(10):1461-1472.
Lewis SR, Pritchard MW, Campbell AF, Alderson P. Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;8(8):CD000567.
Russell JA, Walley KR, Singer J, et al. Vasopressin versus norepinephrine infusion in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(9):877-887.
Jabre P, Combes X, Lapostolle F, et al. Etomidate versus ketamine for rapid sequence intubation in acutely ill patients: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9686):293-300.
Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J. 2020;41(4):543-603.
Spodick DH. Acute cardiac tamponade. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(7):684-690.
Klein AL, Abbara S, Agler DA, et al. American Society of Echocardiography clinical recommendations for multimodality cardiovascular imaging of patients with pericardial disease. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26(9):965-1012.e15.
Vlahakes GJ, Turley K, Hoffman JI. The pathophysiology of failure in acute right heart hypertension: hemodynamic and biochemical correlations. Circulation. 1981;63(1):87-95.
Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315-352.
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.
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, Brower RG, Matthay MA, et al. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(18):1301-1308.
Papazian L, Forel JM, Gacouin A, et al. Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(12):1107

Thursday, August 28, 2025