English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

However, how to identify organ perfusion abnormalities at the bedside and select the type and amount of fluids required to improve tissue hypoxia remain highly controversial. Traditionally, clinical signs, such as reduced blood pressure and urinary output, altered consciousness, and mottled skin, have been used to identify tissue perfusion abnormalities. Consequently, current hemodynamic monitoring during shock states mainly focuses on detection of pressure-derived hemodynamic variables related to systemic circulation. However, it has been largely recognized that monitoring these macro-hemodynamic variables is not sufficient to rule out persistent abnormalities of tissue oxygenation. Indeed, the usefulness of resuscitation targets, such as global oxygen-derived parameters, has been strongly questioned,

Should microcirculation monitoring be used to guide fluid resuscitation in severe sepsis and septic shock?