Rödig G, Prasser C, Keyl C, Liebold A, Hobbhahn J
Department of Anaesthesia, University Hospital, Regensburg, Germany.
Br J Anaesth. 1999 Apr;82(4):525-30. doi: 10.1093/bja/82.4.525.
We have analysed the clinical agreement between two methods of continuous cardiac output measurement pulse contour analysis (PCCO) and a continuous thermodilution technique (CCO), were both compared with the intermittent bolus thermodilution technique (BCO). Measurements were performed in 26 cardiac surgical patients (groups 1 and 2, 13 patients each, with an ejection fraction > 45% and < 45%, respectively) at 12 selected times. During operation, mean differences (bias) between PCCO-BCO and CCO-BCO did not differ in either group. However, phenylephrine-induced increases in systemic vascular resistance (SVR) by approximately 60% resulted in significant differences. Significantly higher absolute bias values of PCCO-BCO compared with CCO-BCO were also found early after operation in the ICU. Thus PCCO and CCO provided comparable measurements during coronary bypass surgery. After marked changes in SVR, further calibration of the PCCO device is necessary.
我们分析了两种连续心输出量测量方法——脉搏轮廓分析(PCCO)和连续热稀释技术(CCO)之间的临床一致性,并将这两种方法与间歇性团注热稀释技术(BCO)进行了比较。对26例心脏手术患者(第1组和第2组各13例,射血分数分别>45%和<45%)在12个选定时间点进行了测量。手术期间,两组中PCCO-BCO和CCO-BCO之间的平均差异(偏差)无差异。然而,去氧肾上腺素使全身血管阻力(SVR)增加约60%导致了显著差异。在ICU术后早期也发现,与CCO-BCO相比,PCCO-BCO的绝对偏差值显著更高。因此,在冠状动脉搭桥手术期间,PCCO和CCO提供了可比的测量结果。在SVR发生显著变化后,有必要对PCCO设备进行进一步校准。