Haemodynamics, fluids & transfusion
Closed-loop vasopressor systems for hemodynamic control in perioperative and critical care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors' conclusion
CLV systems improved haemodynamic control, primarily in perioperative settings, but heterogeneity and small samples limit confidence in effect size and generalisability.
Study context
- Population
- Adults receiving vasopressors in perioperative or ICU settings
- Participants
- 215 adults · 6 RCTs
- Comparison
- Closed-loop vasopressor systems vs manual titration
- Outcome
- Time within the mean arterial pressure (MAP) target range and time in hypotension or hypertension
Methodological detailsPRISMA 2020-compliant, prospectively registered, random- or fixed-effects models, GRADE
- PRISMA 2020-compliant
- Prospectively registered
- Random- or fixed-effects models
- GRADE
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
CLV vs Manual titrationMD, % (95% CI)
Time within MAP target range; I2 = 77%
33.94(20.41–47.46)
- Time in hypotension; I2 = 73%
- MD - 18.24 % (95% CI - 28.95 to - 7.53)
Further pooled results
Cumulative norepinephrine dose
- No significant difference
ICU LOS
- Not pooled because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity
Safety
Major/minor adverse events
- No significant difference
Original publication
Closed-loop vasopressor systems for hemodynamic control in perioperative and critical care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Monit Comput. Published 22 July 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →