Cardiovascular Dynamics

Haemodynamics learning pathway
– Level 1: Foundation Course in Haemodynamics (Part I)
– Level 1: Foundation Course in Haemodynamics (Part II)
– Level 2: Transition Course in Haemodynamics
– Level 3: Advanced Course in Haemodynamics
– The Refresher Course in Haemodynamics

GenIUS pathway

Advanced course in IC Echocardiography

ECLS/ECMO pathway
– Level 1: Foundation Course in ECLS/ECMO
– Level 3: Advanced Course in ECLS/ECMO
– Level 3: Advanced Case-Based ECLS/ECMO Course

Webinars

– SSC Webinar 3: Haemodynamic and fluid management
– Advancing Critical Care: Insights from the LANDI-SEP Study and AI-Driven Optimization of Vasopressin Therapy
– TTC following Cardiac Arrest
– Nonadrenergic vasopressors – STATE OF THE ART

Podcasts

– Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies
– Fluid management and mechanical ventilation strategies
– Sepsis hospitalisation and risk of subsequent cardiovascular events in adults
– Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults: evidence and implications
– Association between Sepsis Survivorship and Long-Term Cardiovascular Outcomes in Adults
– Echocardiography findings in COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU


Free webinars and podcasts are available for members & non members on LIVES-STREAM.
Use your ESICM credentials or create an account

SICU II

Sepsis in the ICU-II: Precision medicine models for sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction

Aims:
To determine the association between left and right ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction (Aim 1), novel biomarkers (Aim 2) and adverse outcome in SIMD. Finally, we will determine the combined value of clinical, biomarker, echocardiographic, and haemodynamic variables (Aim 3). Adverse outcomes are defined as acute myocardial injury (Effect 1), days free of organ support (Effect 2), 30-day mortality (Effect 3) and days alive and out of hospital at 30 days after ICU admission (Effect 4). We will use traditional statistical inference based on standard multivariable and mixed model analysis to explore the prognostic significance of individual and combined predictor variables.

(2) A machine learning algorithm to identify important features for prediction of short- and long-term mortality: To use an ensemble tree-based machine learning approach to identify the most important features (i.e. variables), among a set of supplied features, that can predict mortality, and examine how each feature alters the prior expectation of ICU outcome (Aim 4, Effect 5).
(3) Consensus definition of sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction: Combining the results of our studies with current literature, we will invite key opinion leaders within the field to formulate a consensus for the definition, management and future research priorities for SIMD (Aim 5).

FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT Michelle Chew Dept of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Linköping University Hospital, S58185, Sweden. Michelle.chew [ @ ] liu.se 

FENICE II

Fluid Challenge in Intensive Care: a worldwide global inception cohort study.

Aims:
Primary aim: The primary aim is to describe the modality of fluid administration during the first 5 days of ICU stay considering 1) the overall fluid balance; 2) the characteristics of the fluids given; 3) the modality of fluid administration.

Secondary aims:

• To explore any association between fluid administration characteristics and clinical outcomes (see further)
• To evaluate factors potentially associated with the respective proportion of the different modalities of fluid administration
• To characterize FC administration modality in a large cohort of ICU patients.

Clinical outcomes:

• In-hospital, intensive care unit, and 30-day mortality.
• Major organ dysfunction: lungs, heart and circulatory system, kidneys.
• Variation in SOFA score within 7 days from admission.

Functional outcomes:

• Volume of resuscitation fluids within 5 days from admission, type of fluid, and modality of administration.

Net daily fluid balance within 5 days.

Objectives:

To describe the fluid challenge administration modality and appraise the use of variables and functional haemodynamic tests to guide bolus infusion.

To provide a comprehensive global description of fluid administration modalities during the initial days of ICU admission and to explore any association between fluid administration characteristics and clinical outcomes.

FENICE

FENICE (Fluid Challenges in Intensive Care) is a multicentre observational trial designed and conducted by the ESICM Trials Group to investigate how fluids are administered in critically ill patients.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate how fluids are administered and how frequently fluid administration results in a positive haemodynamic response.

Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study – A global inception cohort study.

The ICU CardioMan Study

Cardiovascular Monitoring & Management in Austrian, German and Swiss Intensive Care Units. The objective of this multicentre study was to analyse the reality of haemodynamic monitoring and therapy of the critically ill in Austrian, German and Swiss intensive care units. This included acquisition of data on which types of haemodynamic monitoring clinicians have available in their ICU.

This study also aimed to investigate which indications lead to therapy decisions and/or extension of haemodynamic monitoring and which parameters serve as therapeutic goals. Additionally, this study investigated how the extension of haemodynamic monitoring guides and modifies therapeutic decisions and strategies in clinical practice.

Funcke S et al. Practice of haemodynamic monitoring and management in German, Austrian, and Swiss intensive care units: the multicentre cross-sectional ICU-CardioMan Study.

• ECHO Project Group: VIEILLARD-BARON Antoine
  • To promote and support research and education on echocardiography in ICU.
• Haemodynamic monitoring: MONNET Xavier
  • To promote and support research and education on haemodynamic monitoring in ICUs.
• Monitoring of sublingual microcirculation

– Monitoring Of hemodynamic and resuscitation practices In sepsis and sepTic shOck in Resource-limited settings (MONITOR-SS LMIC Survey)
– Current Practices in the Management of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in the ICU (NOAF-ICU Survey)
– Anticoagulation Survey 2026

2025

– Monnet X., Messina A., Greco M. et al (2025) ESICM guidelines on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring 2025. 27 Oct. 2025 https://www.esicm.org/esicm-guideline-circulatory-shock-haemodynamic-monitoring/ . https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-025-08137-z Link to free access: https://rdcu.be/eQyqN

– Nolan J. P., Sandroni C., Cariou A. et al (2025) European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine guidelines 2025: Post‑resuscitation Care. Intensive Care Med. 2025 Oct 22. doi: 10.1007/s00134–025-08117-3.

– Ostermann, M., Alshamsi, F., Artigas Raventos, A. et al. European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline on fluid therapy in adult critically ill patients: Part 3—fluid removal at de-escalation phase. Intensive Care Med (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-025-08058-x Published online on 19 August 2025.

– Mekontso Dessap, A., AlShamsi, F., Belletti, A. et al. European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) 2025 clinical practice guideline on fluid therapy in adult critically ill patients: part 2—the volume of resuscitation fluids. Intensive Care Med (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-025-07840-1. Published online on 31 March 2025.

2024

– Lavinio, A., Coles, J.P., Robba, C. et al. Targeted temperature control following traumatic brain injury: ESICM/NACCS best practice consensus recommendations. Crit Care 28, 170 (2024).https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04951-x

– Demoule, A., Decavele, M., Antonelli, M. et al. Dyspnoea in acutely ill mechanically ventilated adult patients: an ERS/ESICM statement. Intensive Care Med 50, 159–180 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-023-07246-x.  Published on 22 February 2024.

– Arabi, Y.M., Belley-Cote, E., Carsetti, A. et al. European Society of Intensive Care Medicine clinical practice guideline on fluid therapy in adult critically ill patients. Part 1: the choice of resuscitation fluids. Intensive Care Med 50, 813–831 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-024-07369-9

– Messina, A., Chew, M. S., Poole, D., Calabrò, L., De Backer, D., Donadello, K., et al. Consistency of data reporting in fluid responsiveness studies in the critically ill setting: the CODEFIRE consensus from the Cardiovascular Dynamic section of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Medicine, 50(4), 548–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-024-07344-4

Awad, A., Jonsson, M., Holgersson, J. et al. Intravascular vs. surface cooling in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients receiving hypothermia after hospital arrival: a post hoc analysis of the TTM2 trial. Intensive Care Med 51, 721–730 (2025).

Beyls, C., Abou-Arab, O. & Mahjoub, Y. Left atrial reservoir strain: an essential tool for evaluating left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in 2025. Intensive Care Med 51, 990–991 (2025).

Sandroni, C., Delamarre, L. & Nolan, J.P. From surface to core: does better cooling make a difference after cardiac arrest?. Intensive Care Med 51, 957–959 (2025).

Hernandez G. et al. Invasive arterial pressure monitoring: much more than mean arterial pressure! Intensive Care Med. 2022 Oct;48(10):1495-1497.

De Backer D. et al. How can assessing hemodynamics help to assess volume status? Intensive Care Med. 2022 Oct;48(10):1482-1494.

Hamzaoui O. and Teboul J-L. Central venous pressure (CVP). Intensive Care Med. 2022 Oct;48(10):1498-1500.

Cour M. et al. Remote ischemic conditioning in septic shock: the RECO-Sepsis randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med. 2022 Sep 14.

Dung-Hung C. et al. External validation of a machine learning model to predict hemodynamic instability in intensive care unit. Crit Care. 2022 Jul 14;26(1):215.

Shi R. et al. Tidal volume challenge to predict preload responsiveness in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome under prone position. Crit Care. 2022 Jul 18;26(1):219.

Gavelli F. et al. Extravascular lung water levels are associated with mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2022 Jul 6;26(1):202.

Meyhoff T.S. et al. Restriction of Intravenous Fluid in ICU Patients with Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2022 Jun 30;386(26):2459-2470.

Legrand M. and Zarbock A. Ten tips to optimize vasopressors use in the critically ill patient with hypotension. Intensive Care Med. 2022 Jun;48(6):736-739.

Slobod D. et al. Right Ventricular Loading by Lung Inflation during Controlled Mechanical Ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022 Jun 1;205(11):1311-1319.

Ahuja S. et al. Association between early cumulative fluid balance and successful liberation from invasive ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS patients – insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study: a national, multicenter, observational cohort analysis. Crit Care. 2022 Jun 1;26(1):157.

Messina A. et al. Fluid challenge in critically ill patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring: a systematic review and comparison of two decades. Crit Care. 2022 Jun 21;26(1):186.

Raia L. et al. Impaired skin microvascular endothelial reactivity in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Ann Intensive Care. 2022 Jun 13;12(1):51.

Monnet X. et al. Prediction of fluid responsiveness. What’s new? Ann Intensive Care. 2022 May 28;12(1):46.

Zarrabian B. et al. Liberation from Invasive Mechanical Ventilation with Continued Receipt of Vasopressor Infusions. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022 May 1;205(9):1053-1063.

Bougouin W. et al. Epinephrine versus norepinephrine in cardiac arrest patients with post-resuscitation shock. Intensive Care Med. 2022 Mar;48(3):300-310.

Wieruszewski P.M. and Khanna A.K. Vasopressor Choice and Timing in Vasodilatory Shock. Crit Care. 2022 Mar 22;26(1):76.

Bakker J. et al. Current practice and evolving concepts in septic shock resuscitation. Intensive Care Med. 2022 Feb;48(2):148-163.

Huang H. et al. Value of variation of end-tidal carbon dioxide for predicting fluid responsiveness during the passive leg raising test in patients with mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2022 Jan 14;26(1):20.

Finfer S. et al. Balanced Multielectrolyte Solution versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med. 2022 Jan 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2114464.

Zampieri F.G. et al. Effect of Slower vs Faster Intravenous Fluid Bolus Rates on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021 Sep 7;326(9):830-838. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.11444.

Zampieri F.G. et al. BaSICS investigators and the BRICNet members. Effect of Intravenous Fluid Treatment With a Balanced Solution vs 0.9% Saline Solution on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021;326(9):1–12. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.11684.

Antequera Martín A.M. Buffered solutions versus 0.9% saline for resuscitation in critically ill adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jul 19;7(7): CD012247. doi: 10.1002/14651858.

A new perspective for Oxygen Therapy in Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction
The DETO2X-AMI is the largest trial to date investigating the effect of oxygen therapy in patients with suspected IMA with no hypoxaemia at baseline, both in the prehospital and hospital setting.

Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock
Vasodilatory shock is a severe clinical condition characterised by acute reduction of vascular resistance leading to systemic hypoperfusion, multi-organ dysfunction and death.

Conservative fluid management: Turn off the tap after use?
In the recently published updated guidelines by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, fluid administration is the mainstay of initial resuscitation of septic patients and it should be performed early

Restricting volumes of resuscitation fluid in adults with septic shock: CLASSIC Trial
The administration of fluid optimises intravascular volume and perfusion pressure of vital organs, excessive fluid administration can be detrimental.

Cardiac output measurements: Echocardiography vs. thermodilution
The clinical standard is considered to be intermittent thermodilution technique based on the Stewart–Hamilton equation. This technique has its limitations, including variability in serial measurements of CO and rare, but potentially serious, complications.