Publication Details
Overview
 
 
Frédéric Michard, Manu Malbrain, Manu Lng Malbrain, Greg S Martin, Thierry Fumeaux, Suzana Lobo, Filipe Gonzalez, Vitor Pinho-Oliveira, Jean-Michel Constantin
 

Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine

Contribution To Journal

Abstract 

PURPOSE: To survey haemodynamic monitoring and management practices in intensive care patients with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).METHODS: A questionnaire was shared on social networks or via email by the authors and by Anaesthesia and/or Critical Care societies from France, Switzerland, Belgium, Brazil, and Portugal. Intensivists and anaesthetists involved in COVID-19 ICU care were invited to answer 14 questions about haemodynamic monitoring and management.RESULTS: Globally, 1000 questionnaires were available for analysis. Responses came mainly from Europe (n?=?460) and America (n?=?434). According to a majority of respondents, COVID-19 ICU patients frequently or very frequently received continuous vasopressor support (56%) and had an echocardiography performed (54%). Echocardiography revealed a normal cardiac function, a hyperdynamic state (43%), hypovolaemia (22%), a left ventricular dysfunction (21%) and a right ventricular dilation (20%). Fluid responsiveness was frequently assessed (84%), mainly using echo (62%), and cardiac output was measured in 69%, mostly with echo as well (53%). Venous oxygen saturation was frequently measured (79%), mostly from a CVC blood sample (94%). Tissue perfusion was assessed biologically (93%) and clinically (63%). Pulmonary oedema was detected and quantified mainly using echo (67%) and chest X-ray (61%).CONCLUSION: Our survey confirms that vasopressor support is not uncommon in COVID-19 ICU patients and suggests that different haemodynamic phenotypes may be observed. Ultrasounds were used by many respondents, to assess cardiac function but also to predict fluid responsiveness and quantify pulmonary oedema. Although we observed regional differences, current international guidelines were followed by most respondents.

Reference 
 
 
DOI scopus