A patient with an uncommon complication from insertion of a central venous catheter: A case report

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Temporal Artery versus Bladder Thermometry during Adult Medical-Surgical Intensive Care Monitoring: An Observational Study

Abstract Background We sought to evaluate agreement between a new and widely implemented method of temperature measurement in critical care, temporal artery thermometry and an established method of core temperature measurement, bladder thermometry as performed in clinical practice. Methods Temperatures were simultaneously recorded hourly (n = 736 observations) using both devices as part of routine clinical monitoring in 14 critically ill adult patients with temperatures ranging ≥1°C prior to consent. Results The mean difference between temporal artery and bladder temperatures measured was -0.44°C (95% confidence interval, -0.47°C to -0.41°C), with temporal artery readings lower than bladder temperatures. Agreement between the two devices was greatest for normothermia (36.0°C to < 38.3°C) (mean difference -0.35°C [95% confidence interval, -0.37°C to -0.33°C]). The temporal artery thermometer recorded higher temperatures during hypothermia (< 36°C) (mean difference 0.66°C [95% confidence interval, 0.53°C to 0.79°C]) and lower temperatures during hyperthermia (≥38.3°C) (mean difference -0.90°C [95% confidence interval, -0.99°C to -0.81°C]). The sensitivity for detecting fever (core temperature ≥38.3°C) using the temporal artery thermometer was 0.26 (95% confidence interval, 0.20 to 0.33), and the specificity was 0.99 (95% confidence interval, 0.98 to 0.99). The positive likelihood ratio for fever was 24.6 (95% confidence interval, 10.7 to 56.8); the negative likelihood ratio was 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 0.82). Conclusions Temporal artery thermometry produces somewhat surprising disagreement with an established method of core temperature measurement and should not to be used in situations where body temperature needs to be measured with accuracy

Goal-directed fluid management based on pulse pressure variation monitoring during high-risk surgery: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Abstract\ud \ud \ud \ud Introduction\ud \ud Several studies have shown that maximizing stroke volume (or increasing it until a plateau is reached) by volume loading during high-risk surgery may improve post-operative outcome. This goal could be achieved simply by minimizing the variation in arterial pulse pressure (ΔPP) induced by mechanical ventilation. We tested this hypothesis in a prospective, randomized, single-centre study. The primary endpoint was the length of postoperative stay in hospital.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud Thirty-three patients undergoing high-risk surgery were randomized either to a control group (group C, n = 16) or to an intervention group (group I, n = 17). In group I, ΔPP was continuously monitored during surgery by a multiparameter bedside monitor and minimized to 10% or less by volume loading.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud Both groups were comparable in terms of demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiology score, type, and duration of surgery. During surgery, group I received more fluid than group C (4,618 ± 1,557 versus 1,694 ± 705 ml (mean ± SD), P < 0.0001), and ΔPP decreased from 22 ± 75 to 9 ± 1% (P < 0.05) in group I. The median duration of postoperative stay in hospital (7 versus 17 days, P < 0.01) was lower in group I than in group C. The number of postoperative complications per patient (1.4 ± 2.1 versus 3.9 ± 2.8, P < 0.05), as well as the median duration of mechanical ventilation (1 versus 5 days, P < 0.05) and stay in the intensive care unit (3 versus 9 days, P < 0.01) was also lower in group I.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud Monitoring and minimizing ΔPP by volume loading during high-risk surgery improves postoperative outcome and decreases the length of stay in hospital.\ud \ud \ud \ud Trial registration\ud \ud NCT00479011The authors thank Maria De Amorim (Paris, France) and Julia Fukushima (São Paulo, SP, Brazil) for help in data analysis, Dr Julia Wendon (London, UK) for reviewing the manuscript, and Dixtal (Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil) for providing the software for the automatic calculation of ?PP.The authors thank Maria De Amorim (Paris, France) and Julia Fukushima (São Paulo, SP, Brazil) for help in data analysis, Dr Julia Wendon (London, UK) for reviewing the manuscript, and Dixtal (Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil) for providing the software for the automatic calculation of ?PP

Less invasive methods of advanced hemodynamic monitoring: principles, devices, and their role in the perioperative hemodynamic optimization.

The monitoring of the cardiac output (CO) and other hemodynamic parameters, traditionally performed with the thermodilution method via a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC), is now increasingly done with the aid of less invasive and much easier to use devices. When used within the context of a hemodynamic optimization protocol, they can positively influence the outcome in both surgical and non-surgical patient populations. While these monitoring tools have simplified the hemodynamic calculations, they are subject to limitations and can lead to erroneous results if not used properly. In this article we will review the commercially available minimally invasive CO monitoring devices, explore their technical characteristics and describe the limitations that should be taken into consideration when clinical decisions are made

Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study A global inception cohort study

Fluid challenges (FCs) are one of the most commonly used therapies in critically ill patients and represent the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in intensive care units. There are clear benefits and harms from fluid therapy. Limited data on the indication, type, amount and rate of an FC in critically ill patients exist in the literature. The primary aim was to evaluate how physicians conduct FCs in terms of type, volume, and rate of given fluid; the secondary aim was to evaluate variables used to trigger an FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC.This was an observational study conducted in ICUs around the world. Each participating unit entered a maximum of 20 patients with one FC.2213 patients were enrolled and analyzed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during an FC was 500 ml (500-1000). The median time was 24 min (40-60 min), and the median rate of FC was 1000 [500-1333] ml/h. The main indication for FC was hypotension in 1211 (59 %, CI 57-61 %). In 43 % (CI 41-45 %) of the cases no hemodynamic variable was used. Static markers of preload were used in 785 of 2213 cases (36 %, CI 34-37 %). Dynamic indices of preload responsiveness were used in 483 of 2213 cases (22 %, CI 20-24 %). No safety variable for the FC was used in 72 % (CI 70-74 %) of the cases. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who received further fluids after the FC between those with a positive, with an uncertain or with a negatively judged response.The current practice and evaluation of FC in critically ill patients are highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not used routinely, safety limits are rarely used, and information from previous failed FCs is not always taken into account

Year in review in Intensive Care Medicine 2009: II. Neurology, cardiovascular, experimental, pharmacology and sedation, communication and teaching

N/

The new Sfar journals are in place

peer reviewe