LAUSR

© 2017 International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science | Published by Wolters Kluwer Medknow The continued search for the ideal hemodynamic monitoring tool continues. Over time, the medical community has endeavored to identify correlates of hemodynamic status and resultant responses to volume expansion. Historically, we have pursued the use of physical examination alone (jugular height and arm vein collapse), to invasive measurements (central venous pressure [CVP] and pulmonary artery catheters [PAC]), to less invasive physician‐interpreted measures (transesophageal and transthoracic echocardiography [TTE, TEE]), and to the proprietary black box evaluation of physiological parameters (arterial waveform contour analysis, transthoracic bioimpedance, etc.,). Still, there is no universal answer as to the ideal monitor of hemodynamic status and volume expansion. In this issue, Power et al.[1] and Lanspa et al.[2] address the important topics of predicting hemodynamic states/responses through monitoring devices in the perioperative period of cardiac surgery patients and volume expansion in critically ill patients in a shock state, respectively.