5 days ago
18
Medicina, Vol. 60, Pages 1884: PiCCO or Cardiac Ultrasound? Which Is Better for Hemodynamic Monitoring in ICU?
Medicina doi: 10.3390/medicina60111884
Authors: Maria Andrei Nicoleta Alice Dragoescu Andreea Stanculescu Luminita Chiutu Octavian Dragoescu Octavian Istratoaie
Advanced hemodynamic monitoring is fundamental in the management of the critically ill. Blood pressure and cardiac function are key markers of cardiovascular system function;, thus, having accurate measurements of these parameters in critically ill patients is essential. Currently, there are various methods available to choose from, as well as a greater understanding of the methods and criteria to be able to compare devices and select the best option for our patients’ needs. Cardiac ultrasound and transpulmonary thermodilution help tailor the therapy for a patient’s individual needs by putting the results of a thorough hemodynamic assessment into context. Both these hemodynamic monitoring techniques have their advantages, drawbacks and limitations. Cardiac ultrasound is a safe, non-invasive, less expensive, efficient bedside tool for diagnosing, monitoring and guiding critically ill patients’ therapy management. It is recommended in the consensus guidelines as the first-choice method, especially when it comes to identifying different types of shock or the various factors involved. Pulse index contour continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) is a minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring technique, integrating various static and hemodynamic parameters through a combination of trans-cardiopulmonary thermodilution and pulse contour analysis. The PiCCO method provides guidance to fluid and vasoactive therapy in critically ill patients and is also used for intraoperative and postoperative fluid management and monitoring in cardiac surgery. While invasive methods such as PiCCO are recommended for hemodynamic monitoring and can provide accurate information, they are not always necessary and are contraindicated in some cases.
