Monitoring volume and fluid responsiveness: From static to dynamic indicators

Taking the “Goal-Directed” Out of Early Goal-Directed Therapy for Sepsis?

“…In general, static measures such as CVP, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, right ventricular end-diastolic volume, and left ventricular end-diastolic area have been shown to be unreliable in predicting fluid responsiveness. [51][52][53][54][55][56] A large body of evidence has now accumulated supporting dynamic measurements as a superior approach to the assessment of fluid responsiveness (for a review, see Guerin et al 57 ). Although studies have consistently demonstrated that dynamic indicators such as stroke volume variation allow prediction of fluid responsiveness with great accuracy, 56,58,59 a large multicenter RCT has yet to be conducted showing a concomitant improvement in morbidity and mortality.…”

Hemodynamic monitoring devices: Putting it all together

“…A thorough review of the physiology of these techniques is beyond the scope of this article but the interested reader is referred to an excellent review by Guerin et al [36].…”

Hemodynamic Monitoring Techniques

“…The main question asked by the intensivist at the bedside of a patient with shock is whether volume expansion will be beneficial [17]. Until the early 2000s, estimated volemia, representing the total blood volume in the body, interested both clinicians and researchers.…”