Current practice in hemodynamic monitoring and management in high-risk surgery patients: a national survey of Korean anesthesiologists.
10.4097/kjae.2013.65.1.19
- Author:
Sang Hyun KIM
1
;
Min Jae KIM
;
Joon Ho LEE
;
Sung Hwan CHO
;
Won Seok CHAE
;
Maxime CANNESSON
Author Information
1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Bucheon, Korea. skim@schmc.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Cardiac output;
Hemodynamics;
Intraoperative;
Monitoring;
Treatment outcome
- MeSH:
Aluminum Hydroxide;
Arterial Pressure;
Blood Pressure;
Carbonates;
Cardiac Output;
Central Venous Pressure;
Electronic Mail;
Hemodynamics;
Humans;
Incidence;
Korea;
Organothiophosphorus Compounds;
Stroke Volume;
Treatment Outcome
- From:Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
2013;65(1):19-32
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Hemodynamic optimization improves postoperative outcomes in high-risk surgery patients. The monitoring of cardiac output (CO) and dynamic parameters of fluid responsiveness can guide hemodynamic optimization. We conducted a survey to assess the current hemodynamic monitoring and management practices of Korean anesthesiologists during high-risk surgery. METHODS: E-mails containing a link to our survey, which consisted of 33 questions relating to hemodynamic monitoring during high-risk surgery, were sent to 3,943 members of the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists (KSA). The survey web page was open from December 30, 2011 to March 31, 2012. RESULTS: A total of 139 anesthesiologists responded during the survey period. Invasive arterial pressure (97.2%) and central venous pressure (93.4%) were routinely monitored. CO was monitored in 58.5% of patients; stroke volume variations were monitored in 50.9% of patients. However, CO was consistently optimized by < 20% of anesthesiologists. An arterial pressure waveform-derived CO monitor was the most frequently used device to monitor CO (79.0%). Blood pressure, urine output, central venous pressure, and clinical experience were considered to be the best indicators of volume expansion than CO or dynamic parameters of fluid responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The survey revealed that KSA members frequently monitor CO and dynamic parameters of fluid responsiveness during high-risk surgery. However, static indices were used more often to judge volume expansion. The current study reveals that CO is not frequently optimized despite the relatively high incidence of CO monitoring during high-risk surgery in Korea.
