Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The pulmonary artery catheter has been a key tool for monitoring hemodynamic status in the intensive care unit for nearly 40 years. During this period of time, it has been the hemodynamic monitoring technique most commonly used for the diagnosis of many clinical situations, allowing clinicians to understand the underlying cardiovascular physiopathology, and helping to guide treatment interventions. However, in recent years, the usefulness of pulmonary artery catheterization has been questioned. Technological advances have introduced new and less invasive hemodynamic monitoring techniques. This review provides a systematic update on the hemodynamic variables offered by cardiac output monitoring devices, taking into consideration their clinical usefulness and their inherent limitations, with a view to using the supplied information in an efficient way.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.medin.2012.05.003 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!