Perioperative Goal-Directed Hemodynamic Therapy: From Invasive Monitoring To Automated Physiological Closed-Loop Systems

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Coeckelenbergh ◽  
Cedrick Zaouter ◽  
Brenton Alexander ◽  
Joseph Rinehart ◽  
Jacques Duranteau ◽  
...  

Abstract Perioperative goal-directed hemodynamic therapy (GDHT) has evolved from invasive “supra-physiological” maximization of oxygen delivery into minimally and non-invasively guided automated stroke volume optimization. Throughout this evolution, investigators have simultaneously developed novel monitors, updated strategies, and automated technologies to aid them in GDHT implementation. In particular, closed-loop systems have been created to both increase GDHT compliance and decrease physician workload. Currently, these automated systems offer an elegant approach to help the clinician optimize cardiac output and end-organ perfusion during the perioperative period. Most notably, automated fluid optimization guided by dynamic parameters of fluid responsiveness has shown its feasibility, safety, and impact. Making the leap into fully automated GDHT has been accomplished on a small scale, but there are considerable challenges that must be surpassed before integrating all hemodynamic components into an automated system during general anesthesia. In this review we will discuss the potential future of automated GDHT by covering the key events that paved the way from initially complex and time consuming approaches to simple yet effective hands-free strategies.

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 (4) ◽  
pp. 8-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
B.I. Kuznetsov ◽  
◽  
A.N. Turenko ◽  
T.B. Nikitina ◽  
A.V. Voloshko ◽  
...  

Diabetes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 102-LB
Author(s):  
MARC D. BRETON ◽  
ROY BECK ◽  
RICHARD M. BERGENSTAL ◽  
BORIS KOVATCHEV

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Pease ◽  
Clement Lo ◽  
Arul Earnest ◽  
Velislava Kiriakova ◽  
Danny Liew ◽  
...  

<b>Background: </b>Time-in-range is a key glycaemic metric, and comparisons of management technologies for this outcome are critical to guide device selection. <p><b> </b></p> <p><b>Purpose: </b>We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare and rank technologies for time in glycaemic ranges.</p> <p> </p> <p><b>Data sources: </b>We searched All Evidenced Based Medicine Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and other non-indexed citations, PROSPERO, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science until 24 April, 2019.</p> <p> </p> <p><b>Study selection: </b>We included randomised controlled trials <u>></u>2 weeks duration comparing technologies for management of type 1 diabetes in adults (<u>></u>18 years of age), excluding pregnant women. </p> <p> </p> <p><b>Data extraction: </b>Data were extracted using a predefined template. Outcomes were percent time with sensor glucose levels 3.9–10.0mmol/l (70–180mg/dL), >10.0mmol/L (180mg/dL), and <3.9mmol/L (70mg/dL). </p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b>Data synthesis: </b>We identified 16,772 publications, of which 14 eligible studies compared eight technologies comprising 1,043 participants. Closed loop systems lead to greater percent time-in-range than any other management strategy and was 17.85 (95% predictive interval [PrI] 7.56–28.14) higher than usual care of multiple daily injections with capillary glucose testing. Closed loop systems ranked best for percent time-in-range or above range utilising surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA–98.5 and 93.5 respectively). Closed loop systems also ranked highly for time below range (SUCRA–62.2). </p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b>Limitations: </b>Overall risk of bias ratings were moderate for all outcomes. Certainty of evidence was very low.</p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b>Conclusions: </b>In the first integrated comparison of multiple management strategies considering time-in-range, we found that the efficacy of closed loop systems appeared better than all other approaches. </p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document