Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Sep 5;13(3):138-150.
doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1772175. eCollection 2023 Jul.

Monitoring Macro- and Microcirculation in the Critically Ill: A Narrative Review

Affiliations
Review

Monitoring Macro- and Microcirculation in the Critically Ill: A Narrative Review

Syed Nabeel Muzaffar et al. Avicenna J Med. .

Abstract

Circulatory shock is a common and important diagnosis in the critical care environment. Hemodynamic monitoring is quintessential in the management of shock. The currently used hemodynamic monitoring devices not only measure cardiac output but also provide data related to the prediction of fluid responsiveness, extravascular lung water, and also pulmonary vascular permeability. Additionally, these devices are minimally invasive and associated with fewer complications. The area of hemodynamic monitoring is progressively evolving with a trend toward the use of minimally invasive devices in this area. The critical care physician should be well-versed with current hemodynamic monitoring limitations and stay updated with the upcoming advances in this field so that optimal therapy can be delivered to patients in circulatory shock.

Keywords: circulatory shock; fluid responsiveness; hemodynamic monitoring; personalized hemodynamic monitoring.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest None declared.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Frank-Starling curve. Patient at point 1 (steep part of curve) is more fluid responsive than patient at point B (flat part of curve).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Systolic pressure variation (SPV). dDown, delta down; dUP, delta UP.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Stroke volume variation (SVV). SVmax, maximum stroke volume; SVmin, minimum stroke volume.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Pulse pressure variation (PPV). PPmax, maximum pulse pressure; PPmin, minimum pulse pressure.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Algorithm for guiding fluid resuscitation in patients with shock on the basis of fluid responsiveness. SPV, systolic pressure variation; SVV, stroke volume variation; PPV, pulse pressure variation; PLR-cCO, passive leg raising-induced change in cardiac output; FoCUS, focus cardiac ultrasound; Lung USG, lung ultrasonography.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Hemodynamic monitoring devices in intensive care unit (ICU) settings. ECG, electrocardiography; NIBP, noninvasive blood pressure; SpO2, oxygen saturation; CVP, central venous pressure; IABP, invasive arterial blood pressure; SVV, stroke volume variation; EEOT, end-expiratory occlusion test; PLR, passive leg raising; TPTD, transpulmonary thermodilution; EVLW, extravascular lung water; PVPI, pulmonary vascular permeability index; CO, cardiac output; RV, right ventricle; PAH, pulmonary artery hypertension; LV, left ventricle; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; PAC, pulmonary artery catheter.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Pinsky M R. Hemodynamic evaluation and monitoring in the ICU. Chest. 2007;132(06):2020–2029. - PubMed
    1. Vincent J L, Rhodes A, Perel A et al.Clinical review: update on hemodynamic monitoring–a consensus of 16. Crit Care. 2011;15(04):229. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pinsky M R. Functional hemodynamic monitoring. Crit Care Clin. 2015;31(01):89–111. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marik P E, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest. 2008;134(01):172–178. - PubMed
    1. Eskesen T G, Wetterslev M, Perner A. Systematic review including re-analyses of 1148 individual data sets of central venous pressure as a predictor of fluid responsiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(03):324–332. - PubMed