That's the challenge—we need to define and target specific hemodynamic goals. But the question remains: Can we truly find one hemodynamic target that fits everyone—you, her, him, and me? I'm Professor Azriel Perel from Tel Aviv, and I just participated in a pro/con debate on goal-directed therapy (GDT). While GDT is gaining popularity, it's important to recognize that it often means different things to different people. The term is frequently used, but not always clearly defined. In my presentation, I addressed the pathophysiological rationale behind this approach, and I also challenged some of the so-called supporting evidence. We must be cautious in clinical practice—not everything labeled as "evidence-based" is necessarily solid or universally applicable. It's essential that we remain critical thinkers, especially when integrating new protocols into patient care. To be honest, I always start to sweat a little when I hear the word "goal"—because in a way, I've been practicing goal-directed therapy my entire career. But goals should be individualized, and we must acknowledge the complexity and variability among patients. This is my fifth time attending IFAD, and once again, it's a true pleasure. What I find both amazing and a bit ironic is that even after all these years, we're still not any closer to full agreement. New data keep emerging, but the interpretation of these data remains challenging—sparking lively, sometimes heated debates, which are as educational as they are entertaining. Thank you, Manu, for organizing yet another thought-provoking and enjoyable congress.

Ver todos los episodios