Skip to main content

Cardiopulmonary Monitoring of Septic Shock

  • Chapter
Hemodynamic Monitoring

Part of the book series: Lessons from the ICU ((LEICU))

Abstract

Optimal resuscitation of septic shock needs to be directed by a hemodynamic monitoring. Fluid responsiveness must be evaluated by dynamic parameters. Monitoring of cardiac output is also recommended. A central venous line, an arterial catheter, and echocardiography are the minimal monitoring required. In case of no response to treatment or concomitant ALI/ARDS, transpulmonary thermodilution should be used in addition to the basic monitoring.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1795–815.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T, et al. Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:2642–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cavallaro F, Sandroni C, Marano C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of passive leg raising for prediction of fluid responsiveness in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36:1475–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Marik PE, 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;134:172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Levitov A, Frankel HL, Blaivas M, et al. Guidelines for the appropriate use of bedside general and cardiac ultrasonography in the evaluation of critically ill patients-part II: cardiac ultrasonography. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:1206–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Barbier C, Loubières Y, Schmit C, et al. Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:1740–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Spencer KT, Kimura BJ, Korcarz CE, et al. Focused cardiac ultrasound: recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26:567–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Monnet X, Marik P, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1935–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Monnet X, Anguel N, Naudin B, et al. Arterial pressure-based cardiac output in septic patients: different accuracy of pulse contour and uncalibrated pressure waveform devices. Crit Care. 2010;14:R109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Monnet X, Teboul JL. Transpulmonary thermodilution: advantages and limits. Crit Care. 2017;21:147.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Connors AF Jr, Speroff T, Dawson NV, et al. Support Investigators. The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. JAMA. 1996;276:889–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pinsky MR, Vincent JL. Let us use the pulmonary artery catheter correctly and only when we need it. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1119–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:486–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. The PRISM investigators. Early, goal-directed therapy for septic shock – a patient-level meta-analysis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2223–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hernandez G, Teboul JL. Fourth surviving sepsis campaign’s hemodynamic recommendations: a step forward or a return to chaos? Crit Care. 2017;21:133.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kiyatkin ME, Bakker J. Lactate and microcirculation as suitable targets for hemodynamic optimization resuscitation of circulatory shock. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2017;23:348–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claude Martin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Martin, C., Duclos, G., Leone, M. (2019). Cardiopulmonary Monitoring of Septic Shock. In: Pinsky, M.R., Teboul, JL., Vincent, JL. (eds) Hemodynamic Monitoring. Lessons from the ICU. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69269-2_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69269-2_33

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69268-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69269-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics