Advertisement

Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 44, Issue 8, pp 1299–1301 | Cite as

Intensive care medicine in 2050: nanotechnology. Emerging technologies and approaches and their impact on critical care

  • Ignacio Martin-Loeches
  • Robert Forster
  • Adriele Prina-Mello
What's New in Intensive Care

Some techniques are only imagined, while others are at various stages of testing or actually being used today. Nanotechnology is expected to make diagnosis possible at the cellular and even the sub-cellular level. Currently, the comprehensive monitoring, control, construction, repair, defense and improvement of all human biologic systems, working from the molecular level, using engineered nano-devices and nanostructures are available in cancer. Given the current speed of innovation, it is difficult to anticipate what will be available or not in more than 30 years. A variety of emerging nanotechnologies are rapidly growing to a level of maturity; we believe that in 20–30 years they will be adopted as standard procedures in daily practice in intensive care units (ICU) [1]. Traditional medical devices attached to a patient are progressively evolving and being transformed by the introduction of nanoscience and nanotechnology into smart systems for continuous assessment for rapid critical...

References

  1. 1.
    Wong HR (2017) Intensive care medicine in 2050: precision medicine. Intensive Care Med.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4727-y PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martin-Loeches I, Perner A (2016) Focus on infection and sepsis in intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med 42:491–493.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4234-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zilahi G, Artigas A, Martin-Loeches I (2016) What’s new in multidrug-resistant pathogens in the ICU? Ann Intensive Care 6:96.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-016-0199-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Perner A, Rhodes A, Venkatesh B et al (2017) Sepsis: frontiers in supportive care, organisation and research. Intensive Care Med.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4677-4 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martin-Loeches I, Deja M, Koulenti D et al (2013) Potentially resistant microorganisms in intubated patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia: the interaction of ecology, shock and risk factors. Intensive Care Med 39:672–681.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2808-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nwankire CE, Venkatanarayanan A, Glennon T et al (2015) Label-free impedance detection of cancer cells from whole blood on an integrated centrifugal microfluidic platform. Biosens Bioelectron 68:382–389.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2014.12.049 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Singh M, Tong Y, Webster K et al (2017) 3D printed conformal microfluidics for isolation and profiling of biomarkers from whole organs. Lab Chip 17:2561–2571.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c7lc00468k CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beitler JR, Goligher EC, Schmidt M et al (2016) Personalized medicine for ARDS: the 2035 research agenda. Intensive Care Med 42:756–767.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4331-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sakr Y, Lobo SM, Moreno RP et al (2012) Patterns and early evolution of organ failure in the intensive care unit and their relation to outcome. Crit Care 16:R222.  https://doi.org/10.1186/cc11868 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bohmer N, Demarmels N, Tsolaki E et al (2017) Removal of cells from body fluids by magnetic separation in batch and continuous mode: influence of bead size, concentration, and contact time. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 9:29571–29579.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.7b10140 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Basit H, Maher S, Forster RJ, Keyes TE (2017) Electrochemically triggered release of reagent to the proximal leaflet of a microcavity supported lipid bilayer. Langmuir 33:6691–6700.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b01069 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gobbo OL, Sjaastad K, Radomski MW et al (2015) Magnetic nanoparticles in cancer theranostics. Theranostics 5:1249–1263.  https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.11544 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sydney Gladman A, Matsumoto EA, Nuzzo RG et al (2016) Biomimetic 4D printing. Nat Mater 15:413–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Toetsch S, Olwell P, Prina-Mello A, Volkov Y (2009) The evolution of chemotaxis assays from static models to physiologically relevant platforms. Integr Biol (Camb) 1:170–181.  https://doi.org/10.1039/b814567a CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature and ESICM 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Multidisciplinary Intensive Care Research Organization (MICRO), Wellcome Trust, HRB Clinical ResearchSt James’s University Hospital DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.CIBER Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES)BarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Irish Centre for Vascular Biology (ICVB)DublinIreland
  4. 4.National Centre for Sensor Research, School of Chemical SciencesDublin City UniversityDublinIreland
  5. 5.Laboratory for Biological Characterisation of Advanced MaterialsTrinity Translational Medicine Institute (TTMI)DublinIreland
  6. 6.Department of Intensive Care MedicineSt James’s University HospitalDublin 8Ireland

Personalised recommendations