Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Intensive Care
Published in: Annals of Intensive Care 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Review

Hemodynamic monitoring in the era of digital health

Author: Frederic Michard

Published in: Annals of Intensive Care | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Digital innovations are changing medicine, and hemodynamic monitoring will not be an exception. Five to ten years from now, we can envision a world where clinicians will learn hemodynamics with simulators and serious games, will monitor patients with wearable or implantable sensors in the hospital and after discharge, will use medical devices able to communicate and integrate the historical, clinical, physiologic and biological information necessary to predict adverse events, propose the most rationale therapy and ensure it is delivered properly. Considerable intellectual and financial investments are currently made to ensure some of these new ideas and products soon become a reality.
Literature
1.
Elenko E, Underwood L, Zohar D. Defining digital medicine. Nat Biotech. 2015;33:456–61.CrossRef
2.
3.
Drews FA, Westenskow DR. The right picture is worth a thousand numbers: data displays in anesthesia. Hum Factors. 2006;48:59–71.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Ford S, Birmingham E, King A, Lim J, Ansermino JM. At-a-glance monitoring: covert observations of anesthesiologists in the operating room. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:653–8.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Gurushanthaiah K, Weinger MB, Englund CE. Visual display format affects the ability of anesthesiologists to detect acute physiologic changes. A laboratory study employing a clinical display simulator. Anesthesiology. 1995;83:1184–93.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Görges M, Staggers N. Evaluations of physiological monitoring displays: a systematic review. J Clin Monit Comput. 2008;22:45–66.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Michard F. Decision support for hemodynamic management: from graphical displays to closed loops. Anesth Analg. 2013;117:876–82.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Biais M, Carrié C, Delaunay F, Morel N, Revel P, Janvier G. Evaluation of a new pocket echoscopic device for focused cardiac ultrasonography in an emergency setting. Crit Care. 2012;16:R82.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Vieillard-Baron A, Slama M, Mayo P, et al. A pilot study on safety and clinical utility of a single-use 72-hour indwelling transesophageal echocardiography probe. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:629–35.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Maisch S, Bohm SH, Solà J, et al. Heart–lung interactions measured by electrical impedance tomography. Crit Care Med. 2011;39:2173–6.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Trepte CJ, Phillips CR, Solà J, et al. Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) for quantification of pulmonary edema in acute lung injury. Crit Care. 2016;20:18.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
13.
Borges JB, Suarez-Sipmann F, Bohm SH, et al. Regional lung perfusion estimated by electrical impedance tomography in a piglet model of lung collapse. J Appl Physiol. 2012;112:225–36.CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
16.
17.
Iberti TJ, Fischer EP, Leibowitz AB, Panacek EA, Silverstein JH, Albertson TE. A multicenter study of physicians’ knowledge of the pulmonary artery catheter. Pulmonary Artery Catheter Study Group. JAMA. 1990;264:2928–32.CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
Graafland M, Schraagen JM, Schijven MP. Systematic review of serious games for medical education and surgical skills training. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1322–30.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Blackburn T, Sadler C. The role of human patient simulators in health-care training. Hosp Med. 2003;64:677–81.CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
Maus TM, Reber B, Banks DA, Berry A, Guerrero E, Manecke GR. Cardiac output determination from endotracheally measured impedance cardiography: clinical evaluation of endotracheal cardiac output monitor. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2011;25:770–5.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Waldron NH, Miller TE, Thacker JK, et al. A prospective comparison of a noninvasive cardiac output monitor versus esophageal Doppler monitor for goal-directed fluid therapy in colorectal surgery patients. Anesth Analg. 2014;118:966–75.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zhang G, Mukkamala R. Continuous and minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring by long time interval analysis of a radial arterial pressure waveform: assessment using a large, public intensive care unit patient database. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:339–44.CrossRefPubMed
25.
DeBacker D, Marx G, Tan A, et al. Arterial pressure-based cardiac output monitoring: a multicentre validation of the third-generation software in septic patients. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37:233–40.CrossRef
26.
Slagt C, Malagon I, Groeneveld AB. Systematic review of uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to determine cardiac output and stroke volume variation. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112:626–37.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Ahmad T, Beilstein CM, Aldecoa C, et al. Variation in haemodynamic monitoring for major surgery in European nations: secondary analysis of the EuSOS dataset. Perioper Med. 2015;4:8.CrossRef
28.
Bubenek-Turconi SI, Craciun M, Miclea I, Perel A. Noninvasive continuous cardiac output by the Nexfin before and after preload-modifying maneuvers: a comparison with intermittent thermodilution cardiac output. Anesth Analg. 2013;117:366–72.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Wagner JY, Sarwari H, Schon G, et al. Radial artery applanation tonometry for continuous noninvasive cardiac output measurement: a comparison with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in patients after cardiothoracic surgery. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:1423–8.CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
Barrachina Larraza B, Alvarez Guerras O, Lopez-Picado A. Capstesia, a new APP for advanced hemodynamic monitoring. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2014;61:535–6.CrossRef
32.
33.
Schwartz G, Benjamin CK, Mei J, Appleton AL, Kim DH, Wang H, Bao Z. Flexible polymer transistors with high pressure sensitivity for application in electronic skin and health monitoring. Nat Commun. 2013;4:1859.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Dagdeviren C, Yewang Su, Pauline Joe, et al. Conformable amplified lead zirconate titanate sensors with enhanced piezoelectric response for cutaneous pressure monitoring. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4496.CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Bourge RC, Aaron MF, Costanzo MR, Stevenson LW, Strickland W, Neelagaru S, Raval N, Krueger S, Weiner S, Shavelle D, Jeffries B, Yaday JS. CHAMPION trial study group. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;377:658–66.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Hammond RL, Hanna K, Morgan C, et al. A wireless and battery-less miniature intracardiac pressure sensor: early implantation studies. ASAIO J. 2012;58:83–7.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Amir O, Rappaport D, Zafrir B, Abraham WT. A novel approach to monitoring pulmonary congestion in heart failure: initial animal and clinical experiences using remote dielectric sensing technology. Congest Heart Fail. 2013;19:149–55.CrossRefPubMed
39.
40.
Aykut G, Veenstra G, Scorcella C, Ince C, Boerma C. Cytocam-IDF (incident dark field illumination) imaging for bedside monitoring of the microcirculation. Intensive Care Med Exp. 2015;3:40.CrossRefPubMed
41.
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;40:1795–815.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
Joosten A, Alexander B, Delaporte A, Lilot M, Rinehart J, Cannesson M. Perioperative goal directed therapy using automated closed-loop fluid management: the future? Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2015;47:517–23.PubMed
48.
Thacker JK, Mountford WK, Ernst FR, Krukas MR, Mythen MM. Perioperative fluid utilization variability and association with outcomes: Considerations for enhanced recovery efforts in sample US surgical populations. Ann Surg. 2016;263:502–10.CrossRefPubMed
49.
50.
51.
Hravnak M, Devita MA, Clontz A, et al. Cardiorespiratory instability before and after implementing an integrated monitoring system. Crit Care Med. 2011;39:65–72.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
52.
Bellomo R, Ackerman M, Bailey M, et al. A controlled trial of electronic automated advisory vital signs monitoring in general hospital wards. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:2349–61.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Guanqun Z, McCombie SA, Greenstein R, McCombie DB. Assessing the challenges of a pulse wave velocity based blood pressure measurement in surgical patients. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014(574):7.
54.
55.
56.
Metadata
Title
Hemodynamic monitoring in the era of digital health
Author
Frederic Michard
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 2110-5820
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-016-0119-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Annals of Intensive Care 1/2016 Go to the issue

Editorial

Normal saline as resuscitation fluid in critically ill patients: not dead yet!

Research

Treatment intensity, age and outcome in medical ICU patients: results of a French administrative database

Research

Elevated C-reactive protein levels at ICU discharge as a predictor of ICU outcome: a retrospective cohort study

Research

Association of REL polymorphisms and outcome of patients with septic shock

Research

Aspergillus-positive lower respiratory tract samples in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a 10-year retrospective study

Research

Sepsis-3 definitions predict ICU mortality in a low–middle-income country