Browsing by Author "Chew, Michelle S."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Consistency of data reporting in fluid responsiveness studies in the critically ill setting: the CODEFIRE consensus from the Cardiovascular Dynamic section of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine
    (2024) Messina, Antonio; Chew, Michelle S.; Poole, Daniele; Calabro, Lorenzo; De Backer, Daniel; Donadello, Katia; Hernandez, Glenn; Hamzaoui, Olfa; Jozwiak, Mathieu; Lai, Christopher; Malbrain, Manu L. N. G.; Mallat, Jihad; Myatra, Sheyla Nainan; Muller, Laurent; Ospina-Tascon, Gustavo; Pinsky, Michael R.; Preau, Sebastian; Saugel, Bernd; Teboul, Jean-Louis; Cecconi, Maurizio; Monnet, Xavier
    PurposeTo provide consensus recommendations regarding hemodynamic data reporting in studies investigating fluid responsiveness and fluid challenge (FC) use in the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsThe Executive Committee of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) commissioned and supervised the project. A panel of 18 international experts and a methodologist identified main domains and items from a systematic literature, plus 2 ancillary domains. A three-step Delphi process based on an iterative approach was used to obtain the final consensus. In the Delphi 1 and 2, the items were selected with strong (>= 80% of votes) or week agreement (70-80% of votes), while the Delphi 3 generated recommended (>= 90% of votes) or suggested (80-90% of votes) items (RI and SI, respectively).ResultsWe identified 5 main domains initially including 117 items and the consensus finally resulted in 52 recommendations or suggestions: 18 RIs and 2 SIs statements were obtained for the domain "ICU admission", 11 RIs and 1 SI for the domain "mechanical ventilation", 5 RIs for the domain "reason for giving a FC", 8 RIs for the domain pre- and post-FC "hemodynamic data", and 7 RIs for the domain "pre-FC infused drugs". We had no consensus on the use of echocardiography, strong agreement regarding the volume (4 ml/kg) and the reference variable (cardiac output), while weak on administration rate (within 10 min) of FC in this setting.ConclusionThis consensus found 5 main domains and provided 52 recommendations for data reporting in studies investigating fluid responsiveness in ICU patients.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Current use of inotropes in circulatory shock
    (2021) Scheeren, Thomas W. L.; Bakker, Jan; Hernández P., Glenn; Kaufmann, Thomas; Annane, Djillali; Asfar, Pierre; Boerma, E. Christiaan; Cecconi, Maurizio; Chew, Michelle S.; Cholley, Bernard
    Abstract Background Treatment decisions on critically ill patients with circulatory shock lack consensus. In an international survey, we aimed to evaluate the indications, current practice, and therapeutic goals of inotrope therapy in the treatment of patients with circulatory shock. Methods From November 2016 to April 2017, an anonymous web-based survey on the use of cardiovascular drugs was accessible to members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A total of 14 questions focused on the profile of respondents, the triggering factors, first-line choice, dosing, timing, targets, additional treatment strategy, and suggested effect of inotropes. In addition, a group of 42 international ESICM experts was asked to formulate recommendations for the use of inotropes based on 11 questions. Results A total of 839 physicians from 82 countries responded. Dobutamine was the first-line inotrope in critically ill patients with acute heart failure for 84% of respondents. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) stated to use inotropes when there were persistent clinical signs of hypoperfusion or persistent hyperlactatemia despite a supposed adequate use of fluids and vasopressors, with (44%) or without (22%) the context of low left ventricular ejection fraction. Nearly half (44%) of respondents stated an adequate cardiac output as target for inotropic treatment. The experts agreed on 11 strong recommendations, all of which were based on excellent (> 90%) or good (81–90%) agreement. Recommendations include the indications for inotropes (septic and cardiogenic shock), the choice of drugs (dobutamine, not dopamine), the triggers (low cardiac output and clinical signs of hypoperfusion) and targets (adequate cardiac output) and stopping criteria (adverse effects and clinical improvement). Conclusion Inotrope use in critically ill patients is quite heterogeneous as self-reported by individual caregivers. Eleven strong recommendations on the indications, choice, triggers and targets for the use of inotropes are given by international experts. Future studies should focus on consistent indications for inotrope use and implementation into a guideline for circulatory shock that encompasses individualized targets and outcomes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Effective hemodynamic monitoring
    (2022) Pinsky, Michael R.; Cecconi, Maurizio; Chew, Michelle S.; De Backer, Daniel; Douglas, Ivor; Edwards, Mark; Hamzaoui, Olfa; Hernández P., Glenn; Martin, Greg; Monnet, Xavier; Saugel, Bernd; Scheeren, Thomas W. L.; Teboul, Jean-Louis; Vincent, Jean-Louis
    Hemodynamic monitoring is the centerpiece of patient monitoring in acute care settings. Its effectiveness in terms of improved patient outcomes is difficult to quantify. This review focused on effectiveness of monitoring-linked resuscitation strategies from: (1) process-specific monitoring that allows for non-specific prevention of new onset cardiovascular insufficiency (CVI) in perioperative care. Such goal-directed therapy is associated with decreased perioperative complications and length of stay in high-risk surgery patients. (2) Patient-specific personalized resuscitation approaches for CVI. These approaches including dynamic measures to define volume responsiveness and vasomotor tone, limiting less fluid administration and vasopressor duration, reduced length of care. (3) Hemodynamic monitoring to predict future CVI using machine learning approaches. These approaches presently focus on predicting hypotension. Future clinical trials assessing hemodynamic monitoring need to focus on process-specific monitoring based on modifying therapeutic interventions known to improve patient-centered outcomes.