Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Novel tools for hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients with shock

Mark E Mikkelsen, MD, MSCE
David F Gaieski, MD
Nicholas J Johnson, MD
Section Editor
Scott Manaker, MD, PhD
Deputy Editor
Geraldine Finlay, MD


Central venous and pulmonary artery catheters (PAC) are invasive tools that have traditionally been used for hemodynamic monitoring in patients who present with shock. However, these tools have drawbacks and inaccuracies. Thus, several, less invasive, novel technologies are available or being investigated for use to assess parameters such as cardiac output, intravascular volume status, responsiveness to intravenous fluid administration, and tissue perfusion. They can potentially be used in the emergency department, intensive care unit, and operating room when caring for patients with shock or hypovolemia.

This topic will discuss novel techniques for hemodynamic monitoring. The evaluation and treatment of shock, central venous pressure and PAC monitoring are discussed separately. (See "Evaluation and management of suspected sepsis and septic shock in adults" and "Evaluation of and initial approach to the adult patient with undifferentiated hypotension and shock" and "Pulmonary artery catheterization: Interpretation of hemodynamic values and waveforms in adults".)


Deficiencies of standard techniques — For many years, the gold standard for hemodynamic monitoring was the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC). However, several studies have demonstrated that the PAC fails to improve outcome in critically ill patients and may be associated with harm. In the late 1990s central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring via central venous catheterization (CVC) emerged as a less invasive alternative that was incorporated into guideline management of sepsis; however, this practice has also been questioned [1-3]. (See "Pulmonary artery catheterization: Indications, contraindications, and complications in adults" and "Evaluation and management of suspected sepsis and septic shock in adults".)

CVP and PAC monitoring suffer from the following inadequacies:

Inconsistent prediction of fluid responsiveness – Both CVP and pulmonary alveolar occlusion pressure have been shown to have poor predictive value for predicting fluid responsiveness (arbitrarily defined as an increase of at least 15 percent in cardiac output [CO] in response to a 500 mL bolus fluid challenge, as measured by PAC) [3-6]. Furthermore, CVP is affected by a number of other physiologic derangements, including valvular regurgitation, right ventricular dysfunction, pulmonary hypertension, and variation in intrathoracic pressure with respiration.

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information on subscription options, click below on the option that best describes you:

Subscribers log in here

Literature review current through: Nov 2017. | This topic last updated: Dec 20, 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:858.
  2. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:1368.
  3. Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest 2008; 134:172.
  4. Michard F, Teboul JL. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest 2002; 121:2000.
  5. Coudray A, Romand JA, Treggiari M, Bendjelid K. Fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients: a review of indexes used in intensive care. Crit Care Med 2005; 33:2757.
  6. Osman D, Ridel C, Ray P, et al. Cardiac filling pressures are not appropriate to predict hemodynamic response to volume challenge. Crit Care Med 2007; 35:64.
  7. Komadina KH, Schenk DA, LaVeau P, et al. Interobserver variability in the interpretation of pulmonary artery catheter pressure tracings. Chest 1991; 100:1647.
  8. Gnaegi A, Feihl F, Perret C. Intensive care physicians' insufficient knowledge of right-heart catheterization at the bedside: time to act? Crit Care Med 1997; 25:213.
  9. Marik PE, Baram M. Noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Clin 2007; 23:383.
  10. De Backer D, Creteur J, Preiser JC, et al. Microvascular blood flow is altered in patients with sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166:98.
  11. Pinsky MR. Functional haemodynamic monitoring. Curr Opin Crit Care 2014; 20:288.
  12. Michard F, Boussat S, Chemla D, et al. Relation between respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure and fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 162:134.
  13. Michard F, Lopes MR, Auler JO Jr. Pulse pressure variation: beyond the fluid management of patients with shock. Crit Care 2007; 11:131.
  14. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T, Hirani A. Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med 2009; 37:2642.
  15. De Backer D, Heenen S, Piagnerelli M, et al. Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume. Intensive Care Med 2005; 31:517.
  16. Renner J, Gruenewald M, Quaden R, et al. Influence of increased intra-abdominal pressure on fluid responsiveness predicted by pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation in a porcine model. Crit Care Med 2009; 37:650.
  17. Jacques D, Bendjelid K, Duperret S, et al. Pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation during increased intra-abdominal pressure: an experimental study. Crit Care 2011; 15:R33.
  18. Biais M, Nouette-Gaulain K, Cottenceau V, et al. Uncalibrated pulse contour-derived stroke volume variation predicts fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients undergoing liver transplantation. Br J Anaesth 2008; 101:761.
  19. Biais M, Nouette-Gaulain K, Roullet S, et al. A comparison of stroke volume variation measured by Vigileo/FloTrac system and aortic Doppler echocardiography. Anesth Analg 2009; 109:466.
  20. Hofer CK, Müller SM, Furrer L, et al. Stroke volume and pulse pressure variation for prediction of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Chest 2005; 128:848.
  21. Lanspa MJ, Grissom CK, Hirshberg EL, et al. Applying dynamic parameters to predict hemodynamic response to volume expansion in spontaneously breathing patients with septic shock. Shock 2013; 39:155.
  22. Daihua Y, Wei C, Xude S, et al. The effect of body position changes on stroke volume variation in 66 mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis. J Crit Care 2012; 27:416.e7.
  23. Eiferman DS, Davido HT, Howard JM, et al. Two Methods of Hemodynamic and Volume Status Assessment in Critically Ill Patients: A Study of Disagreement. J Intensive Care Med 2016; 31:113.
  24. Cannesson M, Desebbe O, Rosamel P, et al. Pleth variability index to monitor the respiratory variations in the pulse oximeter plethysmographic waveform amplitude and predict fluid responsiveness in the operating theatre. Br J Anaesth 2008; 101:200.
  25. Cannesson M, Delannoy B, Morand A, et al. Does the Pleth variability index indicate the respiratory-induced variation in the plethysmogram and arterial pressure waveforms? Anesth Analg 2008; 106:1189.
  26. Keller G, Cassar E, Desebbe O, et al. Ability of pleth variability index to detect hemodynamic changes induced by passive leg raising in spontaneously breathing volunteers. Crit Care 2008; 12:R37.
  27. Maughan BC, Seigel TA, Napoli AM. Pleth variability index and fluid responsiveness of hemodynamically stable patients after cardiothoracic surgery. Am J Crit Care 2015; 24:172.
  28. Marik PE, Monnet X, Teboul JL. Hemodynamic parameters to guide fluid therapy. Ann Intensive Care 2011; 1:1.
  29. Marik PE, Levitov A, Young A, Andrews L. The use of bioreactance and carotid Doppler to determine volume responsiveness and blood flow redistribution following passive leg raising in hemodynamically unstable patients. Chest 2013; 143:364.
  30. Biais M, Vidil L, Sarrabay P, et al. Changes in stroke volume induced by passive leg raising in spontaneously breathing patients: comparison between echocardiography and Vigileo/FloTrac device. Crit Care 2009; 13:R195.
  31. Mandeville JC, Colebourn CL. Can transthoracic echocardiography be used to predict fluid responsiveness in the critically ill patient? A systematic review. Crit Care Res Pract 2012; 2012:513480.
  32. Monnet X, Bleibtreu A, Ferré A, et al. Passive leg-raising and end-expiratory occlusion tests perform better than pulse pressure variation in patients with low respiratory system compliance. Crit Care Med 2012; 40:152.
  33. Duus N, Shogilev DJ, Skibsted S, et al. The reliability and validity of passive leg raise and fluid bolus to assess fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing emergency department patients. J Crit Care 2015; 30:217.e1.
  34. Cherpanath TG, Hirsch A, Geerts BF, et al. Predicting Fluid Responsiveness by Passive Leg Raising: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 23 Clinical Trials. Crit Care Med 2016; 44:981.
  35. Bentzer P, Griesdale DE, Boyd J, et al. Will This Hemodynamically Unstable Patient Respond to a Bolus of Intravenous Fluids? JAMA 2016; 316:1298.
  36. Jones AE, Tayal VS, Kline JA. Focused training of emergency medicine residents in goal-directed echocardiography: a prospective study. Acad Emerg Med 2003; 10:1054.
  37. Frankel HL, Kirkpatrick AW, Elbarbary M, et al. Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of Bedside General and Cardiac Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Critically Ill Patients-Part I: General Ultrasonography. Crit Care Med 2015; 43:2479.
  38. Marik PE, Mayo P. Certification and training in critical care ultrasound. Intensive Care Med 2008; 34:215.
  39. Beaulieu Y, Marik PE. Bedside ultrasonography in the ICU: part 2. Chest 2005; 128:1766.
  40. Beaulieu Y, Marik PE. Bedside ultrasonography in the ICU: part 1. Chest 2005; 128:881.
  41. Jasudavisius A, Arellano R, Martin J, et al. A systematic review of transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography in non-cardiac surgery: implications for point-of-care ultrasound education in the operating room. Can J Anaesth 2016; 63:480.
  42. Rudski LG, Lai WW, Afilalo J, et al. Guidelines for the echocardiographic assessment of the right heart in adults: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography endorsed by the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2010; 23:685.
  43. De Vecchis R, Baldi C. Inferior Vena Cava and Hemodynamic Congestion. Res Cardiovasc Med 2015; 4:e28913.
  44. Prekker ME, Scott NL, Hart D, et al. Point-of-care ultrasound to estimate central venous pressure: a comparison of three techniques. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:833.
  45. Nagdev AD, Merchant RC, Tirado-Gonzalez A, et al. Emergency department bedside ultrasonographic measurement of the caval index for noninvasive determination of low central venous pressure. Ann Emerg Med 2010; 55:290.
  46. Feissel M, Michard F, Faller JP, Teboul JL. The respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter as a guide to fluid therapy. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30:1834.
  47. Barbier C, Loubières Y, Schmit C, et al. Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30:1740.
  48. Hollenberg SM, Ahrens TS, Annane D, et al. Practice parameters for hemodynamic support of sepsis in adult patients: 2004 update. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:1928.
  49. Lichtenstein D. Fluid administration limited by lung sonography: the place of lung ultrasound in assessment of acute circulatory failure (the FALLS-protocol). Expert Rev Respir Med 2012; 6:155.
  50. Lichtenstein DA, Mezière GA, Lagoueyte JF, et al. A-lines and B-lines: lung ultrasound as a bedside tool for predicting pulmonary artery occlusion pressure in the critically ill. Chest 2009; 136:1014.
  51. Volpicelli G, Skurzak S, Boero E, et al. Lung ultrasound predicts well extravascular lung water but is of limited usefulness in the prediction of wedge pressure. Anesthesiology 2014; 121:320.
  52. Cho RJ, Williams DR, Leatherman JW. Measurement of Femoral Vein Diameter by Ultrasound to Estimate Central Venous Pressure. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2016; 13:81.
  53. Hadian M, Kim HK, Severyn DA, Pinsky MR. Cross-comparison of cardiac output trending accuracy of LiDCO, PiCCO, FloTrac and pulmonary artery catheters. Crit Care 2010; 14:R212.
  54. Bein B, Worthmann F, Tonner PH, et al. Comparison of esophageal Doppler, pulse contour analysis, and real-time pulmonary artery thermodilution for the continuous measurement of cardiac output. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2004; 18:185.
  55. Halvorsen PS, Espinoza A, Lundblad R, et al. Agreement between PiCCO pulse-contour analysis, pulmonal artery thermodilution and transthoracic thermodilution during off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2006; 50:1050.
  56. Ostergaard M, Nielsen J, Rasmussen JP, Berthelsen PG. Cardiac output--pulse contour analysis vs. pulmonary artery thermodilution. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2006; 50:1044.
  57. Mutoh T, Kazumata K, Terasaka S, et al. Impact of transpulmonary thermodilution-based cardiac contractility and extravascular lung water measurements on clinical outcome of patients with Takotsubo cardiomyopathy after subarachnoid hemorrhage: a retrospective observational study. Crit Care 2014; 18:482.
  58. Marik PE. Noninvasive cardiac output monitors: a state-of the-art review. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2013; 27:121.
  59. Thiele RH, Bartels K, Gan TJ. Cardiac output monitoring: a contemporary assessment and review. Crit Care Med 2015; 43:177.
  60. Slagt C, Helmi M, Malagon I, Groeneveld AB. Calibrated versus uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis in monitoring cardiac output with transpulmonary thermodilution in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: an observational study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2015; 32:5.
  61. Compton FD, Zukunft B, Hoffmann C, et al. Performance of a minimally invasive uncalibrated cardiac output monitoring system (Flotrac/Vigileo) in haemodynamically unstable patients. Br J Anaesth 2008; 100:451.
  62. De Backer D, Marx G, Tan A, et al. Arterial pressure-based cardiac output monitoring: a multicenter validation of the third-generation software in septic patients. Intensive Care Med 2011; 37:233.
  63. Monnet X, Anguel N, Naudin B, et al. Arterial pressure-based cardiac output in septic patients: different accuracy of pulse contour and uncalibrated pressure waveform devices. Crit Care 2010; 14:R109.
  64. Scolletta S, Franchi F, Romagnoli S, et al. Comparison Between Doppler-Echocardiography and Uncalibrated Pulse Contour Method for Cardiac Output Measurement: A Multicenter Observational Study. Crit Care Med 2016; 44:1370.
  65. Machare-Delgado E, Decaro M, Marik PE. Inferior vena cava variation compared to pulse contour analysis as predictors of fluid responsiveness: a prospective cohort study. J Intensive Care Med 2011; 26:116.
  66. Monnet X, Anguel N, Jozwiak M, et al. Third-generation FloTrac/Vigileo does not reliably track changes in cardiac output induced by norepinephrine in critically ill patients. Br J Anaesth 2012; 108:615.
  67. Monnet X, Lahner D. Can the "FloTrac" really track flow in septic patients? Intensive Care Med 2011; 37:183.
  68. Benes J, Chytra I, Altmann P, et al. Intraoperative fluid optimization using stroke volume variation in high risk surgical patients: results of prospective randomized study. Crit Care 2010; 14:R118.
  69. Marik PE, Pendelton JE, Smith R. A comparison of hemodynamic parameters derived from transthoracic electrical bioimpedance with those parameters obtained by thermodilution and ventricular angiography. Crit Care Med 1997; 25:1545.
  70. Van De Water JM, Miller TW, Vogel RL, et al. Impedance cardiography: the next vital sign technology? Chest 2003; 123:2028.
  71. Suttner S, Schöllhorn T, Boldt J, et al. Noninvasive assessment of cardiac output using thoracic electrical bioimpedance in hemodynamically stable and unstable patients after cardiac surgery: a comparison with pulmonary artery thermodilution. Intensive Care Med 2006; 32:2053.
  72. Sageman WS, Riffenburgh RH, Spiess BD. Equivalence of bioimpedance and thermodilution in measuring cardiac index after cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2002; 16:8.
  73. Kaukinen S, Kööbi T, Bi Y, Turjanmaa VM. Cardiac output measurement after coronary artery bypass grafting using bolus thermodilution, continuous thermodilution, and whole-body impedance cardiography. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2003; 17:199.
  74. Kööbi T, Kaukinen S, Kauppinen P. Comparison of methods for cardiac output measurement. Crit Care Med 2001; 29:1092.
  75. Frerichs I, Amato MB, van Kaam AH, et al. Chest electrical impedance tomography examination, data analysis, terminology, clinical use and recommendations: consensus statement of the TRanslational EIT developmeNt stuDy group. Thorax 2017; 72:83.
  76. Albert NM, Hail MD, Li J, Young JB. Equivalence of the bioimpedance and thermodilution methods in measuring cardiac output in hospitalized patients with advanced, decompensated chronic heart failure. Am J Crit Care 2004; 13:469.
  77. Squara P, Denjean D, Estagnasie P, et al. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33:1191.
  78. Saugel B, Cecconi M, Wagner JY, Reuter DA. Noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring in perioperative and intensive care medicine. Br J Anaesth 2015; 114:562.
  79. Fagnoul D, Vincent JL, Backer de D. Cardiac output measurements using the bioreactance technique in critically ill patients. Crit Care 2012; 16:460.
  80. Han S, Lee JH, Kim G, et al. Bioreactance Is Not Interchangeable with Thermodilution for Measuring Cardiac Output during Adult Liver Transplantation. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0127981.
  81. Noblett SE, Snowden CP, Shenton BK, Horgan AF. Randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of Doppler-optimized fluid management on outcome after elective colorectal resection. Br J Surg 2006; 93:1069.
  82. Gan TJ, Soppitt A, Maroof M, et al. Goal-directed intraoperative fluid administration reduces length of hospital stay after major surgery. Anesthesiology 2002; 97:820.
  83. Roche AM, Miller TE, Gan TJ. Goal-directed fluid management with trans-oesophageal Doppler. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2009; 23:327.
  84. Beltramo F, Menteer J, Razavi A, et al. Validation of an Ultrasound Cardiac Output Monitor as a Bedside Tool for Pediatric Patients. Pediatr Cardiol 2016; 37:177.
  85. Tan HL, Pinder M, Parsons R, et al. Clinical evaluation of USCOM ultrasonic cardiac output monitor in cardiac surgical patients in intensive care unit. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94:287.
  86. Thom O, Taylor DM, Wolfe RE, et al. Comparison of a supra-sternal cardiac output monitor (USCOM) with the pulmonary artery catheter. Br J Anaesth 2009; 103:800.
  87. Thom O, Taylor DM, Wolfe RE, et al. Pilot study of the prevalence, outcomes and detection of occult hypoperfusion in trauma patients. Emerg Med J 2010; 27:470.
  88. Dinh VA, Ko HS, Rao R, et al. Measuring cardiac index with a focused cardiac ultrasound examination in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 2012; 30:1845.
  89. De Backer D. Ultrasonic evaluation of the heart. Curr Opin Crit Care 2014; 20:309.
  90. Noritomi DT, Vieira ML, Mohovic T, et al. Echocardiography for hemodynamic evaluation in the intensive care unit. Shock 2010; 34 Suppl 1:59.
  91. Gassner M, Killu K, Bauman Z, et al. Feasibility of common carotid artery point of care ultrasound in cardiac output measurements compared to invasive methods. J Ultrasound 2015; 18:127.
  92. Weber U, Glassford NJ, Eastwood GM, et al. A Pilot Assessment of Carotid and Brachial Artery Blood Flow Estimation Using Ultrasound Doppler in Cardiac Surgery Patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2016; 30:141.
  93. Adedipe AA, Fly DL, Schwitz SD, et al. Carotid Doppler blood flow measurement during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is feasible: A first in man study. Resuscitation 2015; 96:121.
  94. Stolz LA, Mosier JM, Gross AM, et al. Can emergency physicians perform common carotid Doppler flow measurements to assess volume responsiveness? West J Emerg Med 2015; 16:255.
  95. Vignon P, Mücke F, Bellec F, et al. Basic critical care echocardiography: validation of a curriculum dedicated to noncardiologist residents. Crit Care Med 2011; 39:636.
  96. Creteur J, Carollo T, Soldati G, et al. The prognostic value of muscle StO2 in septic patients. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33:1549.
  97. Guyette FX, Gomez H, Suffoletto B, et al. Prehospital dynamic tissue oxygen saturation response predicts in-hospital lifesaving interventions in trauma patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012; 72:930.
  98. Masip J, Mesquida J, Luengo C, et al. Near-infrared spectroscopy StO2 monitoring to assess the therapeutic effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) on microcirculation in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Ann Intensive Care 2013; 3:30.
  99. Gómez H, Torres A, Polanco P, et al. Use of non-invasive NIRS during a vascular occlusion test to assess dynamic tissue O(2) saturation response. Intensive Care Med 2008; 34:1600.
  100. De Backer D, Creteur J, Dubois MJ, et al. Microvascular alterations in patients with acute severe heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J 2004; 147:91.
  101. Trzeciak S, Rivers EP. Clinical manifestations of disordered microcirculatory perfusion in severe sepsis. Crit Care 2005; 9 Suppl 4:S20.
  102. Trzeciak S, Dellinger RP, Parrillo JE, et al. Early microcirculatory perfusion derangements in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: relationship to hemodynamics, oxygen transport, and survival. Ann Emerg Med 2007; 49:88.
  103. Trzeciak S, Cinel I, Phillip Dellinger R, et al. Resuscitating the microcirculation in sepsis: the central role of nitric oxide, emerging concepts for novel therapies, and challenges for clinical trials. Acad Emerg Med 2008; 15:399.
  104. Trzeciak S, McCoy JV, Phillip Dellinger R, et al. Early increases in microcirculatory perfusion during protocol-directed resuscitation are associated with reduced multi-organ failure at 24 h in patients with sepsis. Intensive Care Med 2008; 34:2210.
  105. Arnold RC, Parrillo JE, Phillip Dellinger R, et al. Point-of-care assessment of microvascular blood flow in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 2009; 35:1761.
  106. Arnold RC, Dellinger RP, Parrillo JE, et al. Discordance between microcirculatory alterations and arterial pressure in patients with hemodynamic instability. J Crit Care 2012; 27:531.e1.
  107. De Backer D, Donadello K, Sakr Y, et al. Microcirculatory alterations in patients with severe sepsis: impact of time of assessment and relationship with outcome. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:791.