Piccoli A, Pittoni G, Facco E, Favaro E, Pillon L
Institute of Internal Medicine, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Padova, Italy.
Crit Care Med. 2000 Jan;28(1):132-7. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200001000-00022.
To assess the relationship between central venous pressure values and bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA), which may be used as complementary methods in the bedside monitoring of fluid status.
Cross-sectional evaluation of a consecutive sample.
Intensive care unit of a university hospital.
One hundred and twenty-one consecutive Caucasian, adult patients of either gender, for whom routine central venous pressure measurements were available.
None.
Central venous pressure values and impedance vector components (i.e., resistance and reactance) were determined simultaneously. Total body water predictions were obtained from regression equations according to either conventional bioimpedance analysis or anthropometry (Watson and Hume formulas). Variability of total body water predictions was unacceptable for clinical purposes. Central venous pressure values significantly and inversely correlated with individual impedance vector components (r2 = .28 and r2 = .27 with resistance and reactance, respectively), and with both vector components together (R2 = .31). Patients were classified in three groups according to their central venous pressure value: low (0 to 3 mm Hg); medium (4 to 12 mm Hg); and high (13 to 20 mm Hg). Three BIVA patterns were considered: vectors within the target (reference) 75% tolerance ellipse (normal tissue hydration); long vectors out of the upper pole of the target (dehydration); and short vectors out of the lower pole of the target (fluid overload). The agreement between BIVA and central venous pressure indications was good in the high central venous pressure group (93% short vectors), moderate in the medium central venous pressure group (35% normal vectors), and poor in low central venous pressure group (10% long vectors).
Central venous pressure values correlated with direct impedance measurements more than with total body water predictions. Whereas central venous pressure values >12 mm Hg were associated with shorter impedance vectors in 93% of patients, indicating fluid overload, central venous pressure values <3 mm Hg were associated with long impedance vectors in only 10% of patients, indicating tissue dehydration. The combined evaluation of intensive care unit patients by BIVA and central venous pressure may be useful in therapy planning, particularly in those with low central venous pressure in whom reduced, preserved, or increased tissue fluid content can be detected by BIVA.
评估中心静脉压值与生物电阻抗矢量分析(BIVA)之间的关系,这两种方法可作为床边液体状态监测的补充手段。
对连续样本进行横断面评估。
大学医院重症监护病房。
121例连续的成年白种人患者,性别不限,均有常规中心静脉压测量值。
无。
同时测定中心静脉压值和阻抗矢量分量(即电阻和电抗)。根据传统生物电阻抗分析或人体测量学(沃森和休谟公式)的回归方程获得总体水预测值。总体水预测值的变异性在临床应用中不可接受。中心静脉压值与单个阻抗矢量分量显著负相关(与电阻和电抗的r2分别为0.28和0.27),与两个矢量分量一起显著负相关(R2 = 0.31)。根据中心静脉压值将患者分为三组:低(0至3 mmHg);中(4至12 mmHg);高(13至20 mmHg)。考虑三种BIVA模式:矢量在目标(参考)75%耐受椭圆内(正常组织水合);长矢量在目标上极之外(脱水);短矢量在目标下极之外(液体过载)。BIVA与中心静脉压指示之间的一致性在高中心静脉压组良好(93%为短矢量),在中心静脉压中等组中等(35%为正常矢量),在低中心静脉压组较差(10%为长矢量)。
中心静脉压值与直接阻抗测量的相关性高于与总体水预测值的相关性。中心静脉压值>12 mmHg时,93%的患者阻抗矢量较短,提示液体过载;中心静脉压值<3 mmHg时,仅10%的患者阻抗矢量较长,提示组织脱水。BIVA和中心静脉压对重症监护病房患者的联合评估可能有助于治疗方案的制定,特别是对于中心静脉压较低的患者,通过BIVA可以检测到组织液含量减少、正常或增加的情况。