Goedje O, Hoeke K, Lichtwarck-Aschoff M, Faltchauser A, Lamm P, Reichart B
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Ludwig-Maximillians-University of Munich, Germany.
Crit Care Med. 1999 Nov;27(11):2407-12. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199911000-00014.
To compare two thermodilution methods for the determination of cardiac output (CO)-thermodilution in the pulmonary artery (COpa) and thermodilution in the femoral artery (COa)-with each other and with CO determined by continuous pulse contour analysis (COpc) in terms of reproducibility, bias, and correlation among the different methods. Good agreement between the methods would indicate the potential of pulse contour analysis to monitor CO continuously and at reduced invasiveness.
Prospective criterion standard study.
Cardiac surgical intensive care unit in a university hospital.
Twenty-four postoperative cardiac surgery patients.
Without interfering with standard hospital cardiac recovery procedures, changes in CO as a result of the postsurgical course, administration of vasoactive substances, and/or fluid administration were recorded. CO was first recorded after a 1-hr stabilization period in the intensive care unit and hourly thereafter for 6 hrs, and by subsequent determinations at 9, 12, and 24 hrs.
There were 216 simultaneous determinations of COpa, COa, and COpc. COpc was initially calibrated using COa, and no further recalibration of COpc was performed. COpa ranged from 3.0 to 11.8 L/min, and systemic vascular resistance ranged from 252 to 2434 dyne x sec/cm5. The mean difference (bias) +/-2 SD of differences (limits of agreement) was -0.29+/-1.31 L/min for COpa vs. COa, 0.07+/-1.4 L/min for COpc vs. COpa, and -0.22+/-1.58 L/min for COpc vs. COa. In all but four patients COpc correlated with COa after the initial calibration. Correlation and precision of COpc vs. COa was stable for 24 hrs.
Femoral artery pulse contour CO correlates well with both COpa and COa even during substantial variations in vascular tone and hemodynamics. Additionally, CO determined by arterial thermodilution correlates well with COpa. Thus, COa can be used to calibrate COpc.
比较两种用于测定心输出量(CO)的热稀释法——肺动脉热稀释法(COpa)和股动脉热稀释法(COa),并比较它们与通过连续脉搏轮廓分析测定的CO(COpc)在可重复性、偏差及不同方法间相关性方面的差异。若各方法间一致性良好,则表明脉搏轮廓分析具有以较低侵入性连续监测CO的潜力。
前瞻性标准对照研究。
一所大学医院的心外科重症监护病房。
24例心脏手术后患者。
在不干扰医院标准心脏恢复程序的情况下,记录术后病程、血管活性物质给药和/或液体输注导致的CO变化。在重症监护病房经过1小时稳定期后首次记录CO,此后每小时记录1次,共记录6小时,随后在9、12和24小时再次测定。
共同步测定了216次COpa、COa和COpc。COpc最初使用COa进行校准,之后未再进行重新校准。COpa范围为3.0至11.8升/分钟,全身血管阻力范围为252至2434达因·秒/厘米⁵。COpa与COa相比,平均差异(偏差)±2标准差(一致性界限)为-0.29±1.31升/分钟;COpc与COpa相比为0.07±1.4升/分钟;COpc与COa相比为-0.22±1.58升/分钟。除4例患者外,初次校准后COpc与COa均具有相关性。COpc与COa的相关性及精密度在24小时内保持稳定。
即使在血管张力和血流动力学存在显著变化的情况下,股动脉脉搏轮廓CO与COpa和COa均具有良好的相关性。此外,通过动脉热稀释法测定的CO与COpa相关性良好。因此,COa可用于校准COpc。