The Nuts and Bolts of Fluid Therapy in Critically Ill Patients

By Maureen Shawn Kennedy, AJN editor-in-chief

Back in the day when I was a bedside nurse, hemodynamic monitoring was just coming into play, and then only in coronary care. In the ER, we relied on a combination of vital signs (pulse and BP), urine output, and central venous pressure (CVP) to guide fluid administration. Later, patients in need of close monitoring received arterial lines to monitor pulmonary arterial pressures; monitors and stopcocks were everywhere (and soon after, infections, but that’s another story . . . ).

But things are changing again, and the trend is toward less-invasive monitoring. In our May issue, we’re pleased to bring you a comprehensive CE article (worth 2.6 contact hours), “Using Functional Hemodynamic Indicators to Guide Fluid Therapy.” The author is Elizabeth Bridges, PhD, RN, CCNS, an associate professor in biobehavioral nursing and health systems at the University of Washington School of Nursing and a clinical nurse researcher at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle. Many critical care nurses will know her from her “standing room only” research sessions at the American Association of Critical Care Nurses National Teaching Institute (this year it will be in Boston, May 20–23), in my view one of the best annual national nursing meetings.

Here’s the article abstract:

Hemodynamic monitoring has traditionally relied on such static pressure measurements as pulmonary artery occlusion pressure and central venous pressure to guide fluid therapy. Over the past 15 years, however, there’s been a shift toward less invasive or noninvasive monitoring methods, which […]

2013-05-01T09:38:12-04:00May 1st, 2013|nursing perspective|0 Comments
Read More

Critical Care: Where’s the Evidence for Central Venous Pressure Monitoring?

Editor’s note: This post is by Anne Dabrow Woods, MSN, RN, CRNP, who is AJN‘s publisher and chief nurse and publisher of Wolters Kluwer Health Medical Research. It was originally published on the blog of Lippincott’s Evidence-Based Practice Network.

I read with interest the article “Central Venous Pressure Monitoring: Where’s the Evidence?” (purchase required for nonsubscribers) in the January issue of AJN. It’s part of a series called Critical Analysis, Critical Care, which will appraise the evidence regarding common critical care practices. So much of what we do in nursing is not based on evidence but on how we have always done things in practice—or on research that was not credible.

This article looks at the evidence supporting the use of central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring alone to guide treatment decisions for patients. According to the article, a 2008 systematic review by Marik and colleagues concluded that CVP is not an accurate indicator of intravascular volume, nor is it an accurate predictor of fluid responsiveness (whether a patient will respond to a fluid bolus with an increase in stroke volume). The authors of the AJN article critically appraised the evidence and determined the following:

2016-11-21T13:10:59-05:00January 13th, 2012|nursing perspective, nursing research|0 Comments
Read More

Nursus Paradoxus

By Marcy Phipps, RN, a regular contributor to this blog. Her essay, “The Soul on the Head of a Pin,” was published in the May 2010 issue of AJN.

Black Hole Paradox/ Angel’s Gate, via Flickr

We’ve been using a new piece of hemodynamic monitoring equipment in our ICU. Considered minimally invasive, it uses an arterial line to measure fluid balance status by measuring stroke volume variation (SVV). The derived values are useful in guiding fluid resuscitation, and are based on a principle with an interesting and contradictory name. Instead of pulsus paradoxus (variations in arterial pressure during spontaneous breaths), the SVV is calculated based on reverse pulsus paradoxus (variations in arterial pressure during mechanical, positive pressure ventilation).

I’m a “numbers” person. From a scientific perspective, I totally get this. But the concept of monitoring hemodynamics using a principle described as a reverse paradox is unsettling. I don’t want paradoxes, especially reverse paradoxes, to exist in nursing; I don’t need or want circular logic to confound and muddle my days. And yet, as I’ve considered paradoxes in general, I’ve found nursing-related situations that seem to fit the definition:

2016-11-21T13:11:43-05:00October 17th, 2011|nursing perspective|1 Comment
Read More

Comment ground rules

1. Please be respectful.
2. We moderate all comments.

Content disclaimer

Views expressed on the blog are solely those of the authors or persons quoted. They do not necessarily reflect AJN’s views or those of Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
Go to Top