• Jochen Mayer and Stefan Suttner.
• Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany. j-mayer@gmx.de
• Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2009 Dec 1;22(6):804-8.

Purpose Of ReviewCardiac output (CO) and other flow-based hemodynamic variables have become increasingly important to guide treatment of patients undergoing major surgery with expected fluid shifts in the operating room as well as critically ill ICU patients. Established techniques such as pulmonary artery thermodilution, however, might not be justified in all of these patients. As arterial access is commonly available, less-invasive arterial pressure waveform-based CO devices are becoming more and more popular.Recent FindingsMany studies dealing with arterial pressure waveform-based CO have emerged in recent years providing additional information with regard to accuracy of the different commercially available devices. Furthermore, methods of comparative CO studies have been recently brought into question.SummaryAlthough there are differences in invasiveness and the need for external calibration, all available devices provide parameters for enhanced hemodynamic monitoring. Initial validation studies of the more established techniques such as the pulse contour cardiac output (PiCCO) or LiDCO were recently met with less enthusiasm, whereas the initially disappointing validation studies of the FloTrac/Vigileo device had encouraging results after software updates. The pressure recording analytical method (PRAM) technique has not so far been sufficiently evaluated to be able to come to a conclusion. Further investigation is required with regard to the ability of the arterial pressure waveform-based methods to guide goal-directed therapy.

10 keywords...

hide…