Are management decisions in critical patients changed with use of hemodynamic parameters from transpulmonary thermodilution technique?

Abstract

The assessment of hemodynamic variables is a mainstay in the management of critically ill patients. Hemodynamic variables may help physicians to choose among use of a vasopressor, an inotropic agent, or discontinuation of drugs. In this study, we aimed to investigate the usefulness of advanced hemodynamic variables in clinical decision-making. Surveys regarding the case were administered to 25 surgeons working in nationally designated trauma centers or on trauma teams, using a voting system at a medical conference. The patient was a 67-year-old male with a crush injury of the left leg after a pedestrian traffic accident, who had aggravated pulmonary edema after leg amputation. Three clinical situations were given and the decision choices were: immediately after amputation, in 8 hours, and on the second day after amputation. Three kinds of variables from hemodynamic monitoring systems were provided for each clinical situation: conventional hemodynamic variables, including central venous pressure; variables from pulse contour analysis (PCA) [cardiac output (CO), stroke volume index, stroke volume variation (SVV), and systemic vascular resistance index); and variables from transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) technique (global ejection fraction and extravascular lung water index). The changes in decisions according to each provided hemodynamic variable were investigated and analyzed. The advanced hemodynamic parameters were considered to have a decisive effect on choosing vasopressors and inotropic agents. The decision was changed in 88% (22/25) of physicians using variables from the advanced monitoring systems. Among them, 82% (18/22) of physicians chose hemodynamic variables from the TPTD technique as their reason for change regarding management of a patient with severe pulmonary edema. Advanced monitoring systems might be helpful in decision-making for critically ill patients. Multiple parameters and trends in change could be more important than a single value. Clinicians should select the system most appropriate according to its advantages and limitations, and interpret the variables obtained correctly.