Haemodynamic monitoring in patients undergoing high-risk surgery: a survey of current practice among anaesthesiologists at the University of the Witwatersrand

LATEST ARTICLES
SEARCH INDEX
SUGGEST ARTICLE
THE OSI COLLECTIONS
AUDIOGRAM SERIES
ABOUT THE OSI
2020 SUMMARY
2021 SUMMARY

OSI STATISTICS

Open access articles:
1592
Annotations added:
3
Countries represented:
117
No. of contributors:
14
Bookmarks made:
26

Haemodynamic monitoring in patients undergoing high-risk surgery: a survey of current practice among anaesthesiologists at the University of the Witwatersrand


JournalThe SA Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia (SAJAA)
Article typeJournal research article – Clinical research
Publication date – Sep – 2022
Authors – D B Hamilton, Z Jooma
Keywordscardiac output, haemodynamic, high-risk surgery patients, monitoring, optimisation
Open access – Yes
SpecialityAnaesthesia, Critical care
World region Southern Africa
Country: South Africa
Language – English
Submitted to the One Surgery Index on September 17, 2022 at 8:44 pm
Abstract:

Background: Haemodynamic monitoring and optimisation in high-risk surgery patients improve postoperative outcomes. High-income countries (HICs) have reviewed their haemodynamic monitoring and management practices. There is, however, a paucity of literature in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in this regard. The aim of this study was to describe the current haemodynamic monitoring practice in high-risk surgery patients among anaesthesiologists at the University of the Witwatersrand.

Methods: A survey was conducted among anaesthesiologists at the University of the Witwatersrand using a convenience sampling method by means of an adapted questionnaire from previous research done on this topic.

Results: A total of 64 out of 76 questionnaires were analysed, attaining a response rate of 84%. Ninety-seven per cent of the respondents either provided or directly supervised anaesthesia for high-risk surgery patients. Ninety-seven per cent of them frequently monitored invasive arterial blood pressure (IABP), 68.8% monitored stroke volume variation (SVV) and 53% monitored cardiac output (CO). The most frequently optimised parameter was IABP (68.8%); while CO was optimised by only 39.1% of the respondents. The VigileoTM monitor was the most frequently used CO device (84.4%). The main reason for not monitoring CO was the use of dynamic parameters of fluid responsiveness as a surrogate for CO (57.8%). Seventy-five per cent of the respondents used SVV as a diagnostic indicator for volume expansion, but the haemodynamic effects of volume expansion were frequently assessed using change in heart rate (78.1%) and blood pressure (76.6%). Most of the respondents (98.4%) believed that their haemodynamic management practice could be improved.

Conclusion: Anaesthesiologists at the University of the Witwatersrand frequently monitored and optimised IABP rather than CO in high-risk surgery patients. The respondents used dynamic parameters of fluid responsiveness as a surrogate for CO monitoring and as an indicator for volume expansion. Most of the respondents believed that their current haemodynamic management practice in this setting could be improved.

OSI Number – 21756

Public annotations on this article:
No public annotations yet