Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAhmad, Ten_US
dc.contributor.authorBeilstein, CMen_US
dc.contributor.authorAldecoa, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorMoreno, RPen_US
dc.contributor.authorMolnár, Zen_US
dc.contributor.authorNovak-Jankovic, Ven_US
dc.contributor.authorHofer, CKen_US
dc.contributor.authorSander, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorRhodes, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorPearse, RMen_US
dc.identifier.uri Identifier: NCT01203605. Date of registration: 15.09.2010.en_US
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The use of cardiac output monitoring may improve patient outcomes after major surgery. However, little is known about the use of this technology across nations. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a previously published observational study. Patients aged 16 years and over undergoing major non-cardiac surgery in a 7-day period in April 2011 were included into this analysis. The objective is to describe prevalence and type of cardiac output monitoring used in major surgery in Europe. RESULTS: Included in the analysis were 12,170 patients from the surgical services of 426 hospitals in 28 European nations. One thousand four hundred and sixteen patients (11.6 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, and 2343 patients (19.3 %) received a central venous catheter. Patients with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores were more frequently exposed to cardiac output monitoring (ASA I and II, 643 patients [8.6 %]; ASA III-V, 768 patients [16.2 %]; p < 0.01) and central venous catheter (ASA I and II, 874 patients [11.8 %]; ASA III-V, 1463 patients [30.9 %]; p < 0.01). In elective surgery, 990 patients (10.8 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, in urgent surgery 252 patients (11.7 %) and in emergency surgery 173 patients (19.8 %). A central venous catheter was used in 1514 patients (16.6 %) undergoing elective, in 480 patients (22.2 %) undergoing urgent and in 349 patients (39.9 %) undergoing emergency surgery. Nine hundred sixty patients (7.9 %) were monitored using arterial waveform analysis, 238 patients (2.0 %) using oesophageal Doppler ultrasound, 55 patients (0.5 %) using a pulmonary artery catheter and 44 patients (2.0 %) using other technologies. Across nations, cardiac output monitoring use varied from 0.0 % (0/249 patients) to 27.5 % (19/69 patients), whilst central venous catheter use varied from 5.6 % (7/125 patients) to 43.2 % (16/37 patients). CONCLUSIONS: One in ten patients undergoing major surgery is exposed to cardiac output monitoring whilst one in five receives a central venous catheter. The use of both technologies varies widely across Europe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Identifier: NCT01203605. Date of registration: 15.09.2010.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the European Society of Anaesthesiologyen_US
dc.format.extent8 - ?en_US
dc.relation.ispartofPerioper Med (Lond)en_US
dc.subjectCardiac output monitoringen_US
dc.subjectHaemodynamic monitoringen_US
dc.subjectMajor surgeryen_US
dc.subjectPerioperative medicineen_US
dc.titleVariation in haemodynamic monitoring for major surgery in European nations: secondary analysis of the EuSOS dataset.en_US
dc.rights.holder© Ahmad et al. 2015
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublished onlineen_US

Files in this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record