Utilize este identificador para referenciar este registo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/2298
Título: Variation in Haemodynamic Monitoring for Major Surgery in European Nations: Secondary Analysis of the EuSOS Dataset
Autor: Ahmad, Tahania
Beilstein, Christian M
Aldecoa, Cesar
Moreno, R
Molnár, Zsolt
Novak-Jankovic, Vesna
Hofer, Christoph K
Sander, Michael
Rhodes, Andrew
Pearse, Rupert M
Palavras-chave: CHLC UCI
Cardiac Output Monitoring;
Haemodynamic Monitoring
Major Surgery
Perioperative Medicine
Data: 2015
Editora: BioMed Central
Citação: Perioper Med (Lond). 2015 Sep 23;4:8
Resumo: BACKGROUND: The use of cardiac output monitoring may improve patient outcomes after major surgery. However, little is known about the use of this technology across nations. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a previously published observational study. Patients aged 16 years and over undergoing major non-cardiac surgery in a 7-day period in April 2011 were included into this analysis. The objective is to describe prevalence and type of cardiac output monitoring used in major surgery in Europe. RESULTS: Included in the analysis were 12,170 patients from the surgical services of 426 hospitals in 28 European nations. One thousand four hundred and sixteen patients (11.6 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, and 2343 patients (19.3 %) received a central venous catheter. Patients with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores were more frequently exposed to cardiac output monitoring (ASA I and II, 643 patients [8.6 %]; ASA III-V, 768 patients [16.2 %]; p < 0.01) and central venous catheter (ASA I and II, 874 patients [11.8 %]; ASA III-V, 1463 patients [30.9 %]; p < 0.01). In elective surgery, 990 patients (10.8 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, in urgent surgery 252 patients (11.7 %) and in emergency surgery 173 patients (19.8 %). A central venous catheter was used in 1514 patients (16.6 %) undergoing elective, in 480 patients (22.2 %) undergoing urgent and in 349 patients (39.9 %) undergoing emergency surgery. Nine hundred sixty patients (7.9 %) were monitored using arterial waveform analysis, 238 patients (2.0 %) using oesophageal Doppler ultrasound, 55 patients (0.5 %) using a pulmonary artery catheter and 44 patients (2.0 %) using other technologies. Across nations, cardiac output monitoring use varied from 0.0 % (0/249 patients) to 27.5 % (19/69 patients), whilst central venous catheter use varied from 5.6 % (7/125 patients) to 43.2 % (16/37 patients). CONCLUSIONS: One in ten patients undergoing major surgery is exposed to cardiac output monitoring whilst one in five receives a central venous catheter. The use of both technologies varies widely across Europe.
Peer review: yes
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/2298
DOI: 10.1186/s13741-015-0018-8
Aparece nas colecções:UCI - Artigos

Ficheiros deste registo:
Ficheiro Descrição TamanhoFormato 
Perioperative Medicine.pdf862,91 kBAdobe PDFVer/Abrir

FacebookTwitterDeliciousLinkedInDiggGoogle BookmarksMySpace
Formato BibTex MendeleyEndnote 

Todos os registos no repositório estão protegidos por leis de copyright, com todos os direitos reservados.