Hemodynamic Monitoring: From Invasive Lines to POCUS-guided Bedside Assessment

A Comprehensive Review for Critical Care Trainees

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Hemodynamic monitoring remains a cornerstone of critical care management, guiding fluid resuscitation, vasopressor therapy, and overall cardiovascular support. The landscape has evolved dramatically from purely invasive monitoring to integrated approaches incorporating point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and advanced non-invasive techniques.

Objectives: To provide a comprehensive review of contemporary hemodynamic monitoring modalities, their clinical applications, limitations, and integration in modern critical care practice.

Methods: Narrative review of current literature, clinical guidelines, and expert consensus statements on hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients.

Results: Modern hemodynamic monitoring encompasses a spectrum from basic clinical assessment to advanced invasive monitoring. The integration of POCUS with traditional monitoring has revolutionized bedside assessment, providing real-time, dynamic evaluation of cardiovascular physiology. Non-invasive alternatives show promise but require careful validation against clinical outcomes.

Conclusions: Optimal hemodynamic monitoring requires a multimodal approach tailored to individual patient needs, clinical context, and institutional capabilities. The emphasis should shift from static pressure measurements to dynamic assessment of cardiovascular physiology and fluid responsiveness.

Keywords: Hemodynamic monitoring, point-of-care ultrasound, pulmonary artery catheter, fluid responsiveness, critical care

Introduction

Hemodynamic monitoring in the intensive care unit (ICU) has undergone a paradigm shift over the past two decades. The traditional reliance on static pressure measurements through invasive monitoring has evolved into a more nuanced understanding of cardiovascular physiology, emphasizing dynamic assessment and functional parameters¹. This evolution reflects our growing appreciation that optimal patient outcomes depend not merely on achieving target numbers, but on understanding the underlying physiological state and the patient's response to interventions².

The modern intensivist must navigate an increasingly complex array of monitoring options, from the traditional pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) to emerging non-invasive technologies and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). This review aims to provide critical care trainees with a comprehensive understanding of contemporary hemodynamic monitoring, highlighting practical pearls and common pitfalls that can significantly impact patient care.

Historical Perspective and Evolution

The introduction of the pulmonary artery catheter by Swan and Ganz in 1970 revolutionized critical care, providing unprecedented insight into cardiac function and pulmonary hemodynamics³. For decades, the PAC remained the gold standard for hemodynamic monitoring in complex critically ill patients. However, landmark studies in the early 2000s questioned its impact on mortality, leading to a significant decline in its use⁴,⁵.

This decline coincided with the emergence of less invasive alternatives and a better understanding of cardiovascular physiology. The concept of fluid responsiveness, introduced by Michard and Teboul, fundamentally changed our approach to volume management⁶. Simultaneously, the advent of portable ultrasound technology democratized cardiac assessment, bringing sophisticated hemodynamic evaluation to the bedside⁷.

Pearl: The shift from static to dynamic monitoring represents one of the most significant advances in critical care. Understanding that a patient's response to intervention is more informative than baseline measurements has transformed modern practice.

Physiological Foundations

Frank-Starling Mechanism and Preload Responsiveness

The Frank-Starling relationship describes the intrinsic ability of the heart to increase stroke volume in response to increased venous return. This relationship is curvilinear, with a steep ascending limb where small increases in preload result in significant increases in stroke volume, and a flat portion where further preload increases yield minimal benefit⁸.

Understanding this relationship is crucial for fluid management. Patients on the steep portion of the curve are "preload responsive" and will benefit from fluid administration. Those on the flat portion are "preload non-responsive" and may be harmed by additional fluids⁹.

Clinical Pearl: The goal is not to maximize preload, but to identify the optimal point on the Frank-Starling curve for each individual patient.

Ventricular Interdependence

The concept of ventricular interdependence recognizes that the left and right ventricles are not independent chambers but interact mechanically through the shared interventricular septum and pericardium¹⁰. This interaction becomes particularly relevant during mechanical ventilation, where positive pressure ventilation affects venous return and ventricular filling.

Oyster: A common misconception is that central venous pressure (CVP) reflects left ventricular preload. In reality, CVP primarily reflects right heart filling pressures and can be significantly influenced by ventricular interdependence, particularly in the presence of right heart dysfunction or elevated intrathoracic pressures.

Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring

Arterial Blood Pressure Monitoring

Arterial blood pressure monitoring via indwelling arterial catheters provides continuous, beat-to-beat blood pressure measurement and enables frequent blood gas sampling. Beyond basic pressure measurements, arterial waveform analysis can provide valuable information about cardiovascular physiology¹¹.

Technical Considerations

Proper setup and maintenance of arterial monitoring systems are crucial for accurate measurements:

Zeroing: Should be performed at the level of the phlebostatic axis (intersection of the fourth intercostal space and mid-axillary line)
Damping: Over-damping leads to underestimation of systolic pressure and overestimation of diastolic pressure
Calibration: Modern transducers require minimal calibration but should be checked regularly

Clinical Hack: The arterial pressure waveform morphology can provide valuable diagnostic information. A bisferiens pulse suggests aortic stenosis with regurgitation, while pulsus alternans indicates severe left ventricular dysfunction.

Dynamic Indices from Arterial Waveform

The arterial pressure waveform during mechanical ventilation provides valuable information about fluid responsiveness through analysis of stroke volume variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV)¹².

Stroke Volume Variation (SVV):

SVV = (SVmax - SVmin) / SVmean × 100
Values >12-15% suggest fluid responsiveness
Requires controlled mechanical ventilation with tidal volumes ≥8 mL/kg

Pulse Pressure Variation (PPV):

PPV = (PPmax - PPmin) / PPmean × 100
Threshold values similar to SVV
Can be calculated manually or automatically by monitoring systems

Important Limitation: These indices are only reliable during controlled mechanical ventilation with adequate tidal volumes and in the absence of significant arrhythmias or spontaneous breathing efforts¹³.

Central Venous Pressure Monitoring

Central venous pressure monitoring provides information about right heart filling pressures and venous return. Despite widespread use, CVP has significant limitations as a predictor of fluid responsiveness¹⁴.

Anatomical Considerations

Proper CVP measurement requires understanding of venous anatomy and waveform interpretation:

Normal CVP Waveform Components:

a-wave: Atrial contraction
c-wave: Tricuspid valve closure
x-descent: Atrial relaxation
v-wave: Ventricular systole with closed tricuspid valve
y-descent: Tricuspid valve opening

Pearl: CVP should be measured at end-expiration when intrathoracic pressures are most stable. In mechanically ventilated patients, this corresponds to the end of the expiratory phase.

Oyster: Elevated CVP doesn't always indicate volume overload. Consider tricuspid regurgitation, right heart failure, pericardial disease, or elevated intrathoracic pressures as alternative explanations.

Pulmonary Artery Catheterization

Despite controversy regarding its impact on mortality, the PAC remains valuable in selected critically ill patients, particularly those with complex hemodynamic disturbances¹⁵.

Indications for PAC Insertion

Strong Indications:

Cardiogenic shock requiring inotropic support
Right heart catheterization for pulmonary hypertension evaluation
Complex cardiac surgery with anticipated hemodynamic instability
Severe heart failure with uncertain volume status

Relative Indications:

Shock of uncertain etiology
Severe ARDS with refractory hypoxemia
High-risk surgical procedures

PAC-Derived Measurements

Direct Measurements:

Right atrial pressure (RAP)
Right ventricular pressure (RVP)
Pulmonary artery pressure (PAP)
Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP)
Cardiac output (CO) by thermodilution
Mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO₂)

Calculated Parameters:

Cardiac index (CI) = CO / Body surface area
Systemic vascular resistance (SVR) = (MAP - CVP) / CO × 80
Pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) = (mPAP - PCWP) / CO × 80
Stroke volume (SV) = CO / Heart rate
Oxygen delivery (DO₂) = CO × CaO₂ × 10

Clinical Hack: The thermodilution cardiac output measurement should be performed with 10mL of cold saline injected rapidly and smoothly over 2-4 seconds at end-expiration. Multiple measurements should be averaged for accuracy.

PCWP Interpretation

PCWP is intended to reflect left atrial pressure and, by extension, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP). However, this relationship is influenced by several factors:

Factors Affecting PCWP-LVEDP Relationship:

Mitral valve disease
Left ventricular compliance
Intrathoracic pressure changes
PEEP levels
Catheter position (West zones)

Pearl: PCWP should be measured at end-expiration with the patient in supine position. In mechanically ventilated patients, temporarily discontinuing PEEP may provide more accurate measurements, though this should be done cautiously.

Non-Invasive and Minimally Invasive Monitoring

Pulse Contour Analysis

Modern pulse contour analysis systems estimate cardiac output from the arterial pressure waveform using various algorithms. These systems offer the advantage of providing continuous cardiac output monitoring with minimal invasiveness¹⁶.

Available Systems

Calibrated Systems:

PiCCO (Pulse Contour Cardiac Output)
LiDCO (Lithium Dilution Cardiac Output)

Uncalibrated Systems:

FloTrac/Vigileo
MostCare
Pressure Recording Analytical Method (PRAM)

Advantages:

Continuous monitoring
Less invasive than PAC
Additional parameters (SVV, PPV)

Limitations:

Affected by arterial compliance changes
May require recalibration
Less accurate in certain populations (elderly, severe sepsis)

Esophageal Doppler Monitoring

Esophageal Doppler monitoring (EDM) measures blood flow velocity in the descending aorta using a flexible probe placed in the esophagus¹⁷. The technique provides information about stroke volume, cardiac output, and fluid responsiveness.

Key Parameters:

Stroke volume
Cardiac output
Flow time corrected (FTc) - surrogate for preload
Peak velocity - indicator of contractility

Clinical Applications:

Perioperative fluid optimization
Goal-directed therapy protocols
Assessment of fluid responsiveness

Pearl: FTc values <330 ms suggest hypovolemia, while values >380 ms may indicate hypervolemia. The normal range is 330-380 ms.

Impedance-Based Monitoring

Bioimpedance and bioreactance technologies measure changes in thoracic electrical conductivity to estimate cardiac output and fluid status¹⁸.

Advantages:

Completely non-invasive
Continuous monitoring
Easy to apply

Limitations:

Accuracy concerns in certain populations
Interference from electrical devices
Movement artifacts

Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Hemodynamic Assessment

The integration of POCUS into critical care practice has revolutionized bedside hemodynamic assessment. POCUS provides real-time, dynamic visualization of cardiovascular structures and function, complementing traditional monitoring methods¹⁹.

Focused Cardiac Assessment

Basic Views and Measurements

Parasternal Long Axis (PLAX):

Left ventricular function assessment
Aortic root evaluation
Pericardial effusion detection

Parasternal Short Axis (PSAX):

Regional wall motion assessment
Papillary muscle level evaluation
Right ventricular size estimation

Apical 4-Chamber:

Biventricular function
Mitral and tricuspid valve assessment
Wall motion analysis

Subcostal View:

Alternative window in mechanically ventilated patients
Pericardial effusion assessment
IVC evaluation

Left Ventricular Function Assessment

Visual Assessment: POCUS allows rapid visual assessment of left ventricular function:

Hyperdynamic: EF >70%
Normal: EF 55-70%
Mild dysfunction: EF 45-55%
Moderate dysfunction: EF 30-45%
Severe dysfunction: EF <30%

Quantitative Measurements:

Fractional shortening
E-point septal separation (EPSS)
Mitral annular plane systolic excursion (MAPSE)

Clinical Hack: E-point septal separation >7mm suggests significant left ventricular dysfunction with good correlation to ejection fraction <30%.

Right Ventricular Assessment

Right ventricular evaluation is particularly important in critically ill patients, as RV dysfunction is associated with increased mortality²⁰.

Qualitative Assessment:

RV/LV size ratio in apical 4-chamber view
Septal motion (D-shaped LV suggests RV pressure overload)
RV wall thickness

Quantitative Measures:

Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE)
RV fractional area change
RV index of myocardial performance (RIMP)

Pearl: TAPSE <17mm indicates RV dysfunction and is associated with poor outcomes in critically ill patients.

Fluid Responsiveness Assessment with POCUS

Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Assessment

IVC ultrasound has become a cornerstone of bedside volume assessment. The IVC diameter and its respiratory variation provide information about right atrial pressure and fluid responsiveness²¹.

Technical Considerations:

Subcostal or right parasternal approach
M-mode measurement 2-3 cm from RA junction
Measure maximum and minimum diameters

Interpretation in Spontaneously Breathing Patients:

IVC <2.1 cm with >50% collapse: RAP 3 mmHg (range 0-5 mmHg)
IVC <2.1 cm with <50% collapse: RAP 8 mmHg (range 5-10 mmHg)
IVC >2.1 cm with >50% collapse: RAP 8 mmHg (range 5-10 mmHg)
IVC >2.1 cm with <50% collapse: RAP 15 mmHg (range 10-20 mmHg)

Interpretation in Mechanically Ventilated Patients:

IVC distensibility index >18% suggests fluid responsiveness
Distensibility index = (IVCmax - IVCmin) / IVCmin × 100

Important Limitations:

Intra-abdominal hypertension
Tricuspid regurgitation
Right heart failure
Spontaneous breathing efforts during mechanical ventilation

Passive Leg Raising (PLR) Test with POCUS

The PLR test provides a reversible preload challenge that can predict fluid responsiveness without actually administering fluids²². POCUS can be used to measure the hemodynamic response to PLR.

Technique:

Baseline measurement of stroke volume or cardiac output
Elevate legs to 45° while keeping torso flat
Measure change in stroke volume within 1-2 minutes
Return to baseline position

Interpretation:

Increase in stroke volume ≥10-15% suggests fluid responsiveness
Can be performed in patients with spontaneous breathing efforts
Valid in patients with atrial fibrillation

Clinical Hack: Use the VTI (velocity time integral) in the LVOT (left ventricular outflow tract) to assess stroke volume changes during PLR. This is more reliable than visual assessment of LV function.

Advanced POCUS Techniques

Lung Ultrasound for Volume Status

Lung ultrasound can detect pulmonary edema earlier and more sensitively than chest radiography²³. B-lines (comet tails) represent thickened interlobular septa and correlate with extravascular lung water.

B-line Quantification:

0-4 B-lines per intercostal space: Normal
5-7 B-lines per intercostal space: Mild edema
≥8 B-lines per intercostal space: Severe edema

Clinical Applications:

Differentiating cardiogenic from non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema
Monitoring response to diuretic therapy
Assessing volume status in hemodialysis patients

Carotid Doppler Assessment

Carotid artery Doppler can provide information about cardiac output and fluid responsiveness through assessment of carotid blood flow²⁴.

Measurements:

Carotid artery diameter
Velocity time integral (VTI)
Peak systolic velocity

Fluid Responsiveness:

Respiratory variation in carotid artery peak velocity >18% predicts fluid responsiveness
Useful alternative when echocardiographic windows are poor

Integration of Monitoring Modalities

The Hemodynamic Triangle

Modern hemodynamic assessment should integrate information from multiple sources to create a comprehensive picture of cardiovascular physiology. The "hemodynamic triangle" concept emphasizes three key components:

Preload Assessment: CVP, PCWP, IVC ultrasound, PLR test
Afterload Assessment: SVR, arterial pressure waveform analysis
Contractility Assessment: Echocardiography, pulse contour analysis

Clinical Decision-Making Algorithms

Shock Evaluation Algorithm

Step 1: Basic Assessment

Clinical examination
Basic monitoring (HR, BP, CVP if available)
POCUS cardiac assessment

Step 2: Shock Classification

Distributive: High CO, low SVR
Cardiogenic: Low CO, high PCWP
Hypovolemic: Low CO, low PCWP
Obstructive: Variable depending on etiology

Step 3: Advanced Monitoring

Consider PAC for complex cases
Pulse contour analysis for continuous CO monitoring
Serial POCUS assessments

Fluid Management Algorithm

Assessment of Fluid Responsiveness:

Check exclusion criteria for dynamic indices
Assess PPV/SVV if applicable
Perform PLR test with POCUS
Consider IVC ultrasound

Fluid Administration Decision:

Fluid responsive + evidence of hypoperfusion → Give fluids
Fluid non-responsive → Consider vasopressors/inotropes
Signs of fluid overload → Consider diuretics

Pearl: Always reassess after intervention. Hemodynamic status can change rapidly in critically ill patients.

Special Populations and Considerations

Mechanical Ventilation Effects

Mechanical ventilation significantly affects hemodynamic monitoring interpretation. Positive pressure ventilation decreases venous return during inspiration and can mask hypovolemia²⁵.

Key Considerations:

PPV and SVV are only valid during controlled ventilation
PEEP affects all intrathoracic pressure measurements
Spontaneous breathing efforts invalidate dynamic indices

Clinical Hack: In patients with spontaneous breathing efforts, consider the PLR test or respiratory variation in IVC diameter as alternatives to PPV/SVV.

Arrhythmias

Atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias pose unique challenges for hemodynamic monitoring²⁶.

Impact on Monitoring:

PPV and SVV are unreliable
Thermodilution CO requires multiple measurements
POCUS assessment may require averaging multiple beats

Alternative Approaches:

PLR test remains valid
IVC assessment less affected
Consider longer averaging periods for pulse contour analysis

Cardiac Surgery Patients

Post-cardiac surgery patients present unique hemodynamic challenges requiring specialized monitoring approaches²⁷.

Special Considerations:

Temporary epicardial pacing wires
Potential for cardiac tamponade
Altered ventricular compliance
Impact of cardiopulmonary bypass

Monitoring Priorities:

Continuous arterial pressure monitoring
PAC in complex cases
Frequent POCUS assessment for tamponade
Lactate monitoring for adequacy of perfusion

Emerging Technologies and Future Directions

Wearable Hemodynamic Monitors

Advances in sensor technology are enabling continuous, non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring through wearable devices²⁸. These technologies show promise for early detection of hemodynamic deterioration.

Artificial Intelligence Integration

Machine learning algorithms are being developed to integrate multiple monitoring modalities and predict hemodynamic events before they become clinically apparent²⁹.

Advanced Ultrasound Techniques

New ultrasound technologies, including contrast echocardiography and strain imaging, are providing more detailed assessment of cardiac function at the bedside³⁰.

Common Pitfalls and Troubleshooting

Technical Issues

Arterial Line Problems:

Over-damping: Check for air bubbles, kinks in tubing
Under-damping: May indicate catheter whip or high cardiac output
Pressure drift: Ensure proper leveling and calibration

PAC Problems:

Wedge pressure tracing: Ensure proper inflation and deflation
Thermodilution accuracy: Use consistent injection technique
Catheter migration: Monitor pressure waveforms for changes

POCUS Challenges:

Poor windows: Consider alternative approaches
Measurement variability: Take multiple measurements
Interpretation errors: Seek expert consultation when uncertain

Clinical Pitfalls

Over-reliance on Single Parameters:

CVP alone is not predictive of fluid responsiveness
Normal cardiac output doesn't exclude shock
Static measurements may not reflect dynamic physiology

Ignoring Clinical Context:

Numbers must be interpreted in clinical context
Trends are more important than single values
Patient response to intervention is key

Failure to Reassess:

Hemodynamic status can change rapidly
Regular reassessment is essential
Be prepared to adjust monitoring strategy

Pearls and Clinical Hacks Summary

Top 10 Clinical Pearls

Dynamic over static: Assess response to intervention rather than relying on baseline measurements
Integrate multiple modalities: No single monitor provides complete hemodynamic picture
Consider clinical context: Numbers must be interpreted within the clinical scenario
Trends matter more than single values: Serial assessments provide more information
POCUS is complementary: Use ultrasound to enhance, not replace, clinical assessment
Mechanical ventilation affects everything: Understand the impact of positive pressure ventilation
Right heart matters: Don't forget RV assessment in hemodynamic evaluation
Fluid responsiveness ≠ fluid need: Being fluid responsive doesn't always mean fluids are indicated
Reassess after intervention: Always evaluate patient response to treatment
Less invasive when possible: Match monitoring intensity to clinical needs

Essential Clinical Hacks

Quick fluid responsiveness assessment: Use PLR with POCUS VTI measurement
Poor echo windows: Try subcostal view or right parasternal approach
Rapid CO estimation: Use the rule of thumb: CO ≈ SV × HR (where SV ≈ 70mL in normal adults)
IVC measurement trick: Use the liver as an acoustic window for better visualization
PAC wedge pressure validation: PCWP should be ≤ diastolic PAP
Arterial line troubleshooting: Square wave test to assess damping
B-line quantification: Count in multiple intercostal spaces for accuracy
RV assessment shortcut: RV:LV ratio >0.6 in apical 4-chamber suggests RV enlargement
Sepsis monitoring: Combine ScvO₂/SvO₂ with lactate for adequacy of resuscitation
Shock differentiation: Use POCUS to quickly differentiate shock etiologies at bedside

Conclusion

Hemodynamic monitoring in the modern ICU requires a sophisticated understanding of cardiovascular physiology combined with skillful integration of multiple monitoring modalities. The evolution from invasive monitoring alone to a multimodal approach incorporating POCUS and advanced non-invasive techniques has improved our ability to assess and manage critically ill patients.

Success in hemodynamic monitoring depends not on mastery of individual technologies, but on understanding when and how to integrate different approaches to answer specific clinical questions. The goal is not to achieve perfect numbers, but to optimize tissue perfusion and organ function while minimizing the risks associated with both under- and over-resuscitation.

As technology continues to advance, the fundamental principles remain unchanged: understand the underlying physiology, integrate multiple data sources, consider the clinical context, and always reassess the patient's response to intervention. The future of hemodynamic monitoring lies not in any single revolutionary technology, but in the intelligent integration of multiple modalities to provide personalized, physiology-based care for each critically ill patient.

For critical care trainees, developing competency in hemodynamic monitoring requires both theoretical knowledge and extensive practical experience. The techniques and principles outlined in this review provide a foundation, but expertise comes only through careful observation, thoughtful analysis, and continuous learning at the bedside. Remember that hemodynamic monitoring is not an end in itself, but a means to the ultimate goal of improving patient outcomes through optimized cardiovascular support.

References

Vincent JL, Rhodes A, Perel A, et al. Clinical review: Update on hemodynamic monitoring--a consensus of 16. Crit Care. 2011;15(4):229.
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.
Swan HJ, Ganz W, Forrester J, et al. Catheterization of the heart in man with use of a flow-directed balloon-tipped catheter. N Engl J Med. 1970;283(9):447-451.
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.
Wheeler AP, Bernard GR, Thompson BT, et al. Pulmonary-artery versus central venous catheter to guide treatment of acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(21):2213-2224.
Michard F, Teboul JL. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121(6):2000-2008.
Vignon P, Begot E, Mari A, et al. Hemodynamic assessment of patients with septic shock using transpulmonary thermodilution and critical care echocardiography: a comparative study. Chest. 2018;153(1):55-64.
Starling EH. The Linacre Lecture on the Law of the Heart. London: Longmans, Green and Co; 1918.
Monnet X, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising: five rules, not a drop of fluid! Crit Care. 2015;19:18.
Beaulieu Y, Marik PE. Bedside ultrasonography in the ICU: part 2. Chest. 2005;128(3):1766-1781.
Michard F. Changes in arterial pressure during mechanical ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2005;103(2):419-428.
Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T, Hirani A. Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(9):2642-2647.
De Backer D, Heenen S, Piagnerelli M, et al. Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(4):517-523.
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.
Rajaram SS, Desai NK, Kalra A, et al. Pulmonary artery catheters for adult patients in intensive care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):CD003408.
Salzwedel C, Puig J, Carstens A, et al. Perioperative goal-directed hemodynamic therapy based on radial arterial pulse pressure variation and continuous cardiac index trending reduces postoperative complications after major abdominal surgery: a multi-center, prospective, randomized study. Crit Care. 2013;17(5):R191.
Gan TJ, Soppitt A, Maroof M, et al. Goal-directed intraoperative fluid administration reduces length of hospital stay after major surgery. Anesthesiology. 2002;97(4):820-826.
Squara P, Denjean D, Estagnasie P, et al. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(7):1191-1194.
Neskovic AN, Hagendorff A, Lancellotti P, et al. Emergency echocardiography: the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging recommendations. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;14(1):1-11.
Boissier F, Katsahian S, Razazi K, et al. Prevalence and prognosis of cor pulmonale during protective ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(10):1725-1733.
Brennan JM, Blair JE, Goonewardena S, et al. Reappraisal of the use of inferior vena cava for estimating right atrial pressure. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2007;20(7):857-861.
Monnet X, Rienzo M, Osman D, et al. Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(5):1402-1407.
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.
Monnet X, Chemla D, Osman D, et al. Measuring aortic diameter improves accuracy of esophageal Doppler in assessing fluid responsiveness. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(2):477-482.
Pinsky MR. Cardiovascular issues in respiratory care. Chest. 2005;128(5 Suppl 2):592S-597S.
Reuter DA, Felbinger TW, Schmidt C, et al. Stroke volume variations for assessment of cardiac responsiveness to volume loading in mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28(4):392-398.
Denault AY, Couture P, McKenty S, et al. Perioperative use of transesophageal echocardiography by anesthesiologists: an observational study from two tertiary care university hospitals. Can J Anaesth. 2013;60(8):761-770.
Etemadi M, Inan OT, Giovangrandi L, Kovacs GT. Rapid assessment of cardiac contractility on a home bathroom scale. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2011;15(6):864-869.
Hatib F, Jian Z, Buddi S, et al. Machine-learning algorithm to predict hypotension based on high-fidelity arterial pressure waveform analysis. Anesthesiology. 2018;129(4):663-674.
Mor-Avi V, Lang RM, Badano LP, et al. Current and evolving echocardiographic techniques for the quantitative evaluation of cardiac mechanics: ASE/EAE consensus statement on methodology and indications endorsed by the Japanese Society of Echocardiography. Eur J Ec

Thursday, September 18, 2025