Felbinger Thomas W, Reuter Daniel A, Eltzschig Holger K, Moerstedt Karl, Goedje Oliver, Goetz Alwin E
Department of Anesthesiology, Grosshadern Medical Center, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
J Clin Anesth. 2002 Jun;14(4):296-301. doi: 10.1016/s0952-8180(02)00363-x.
To compare cardiac index (CI) measurement by arterial pulse contour analysis using two different algorithms (CI(PC), CI(PCnew)) with pulmonary arterial thermodilution values (CI(PA)) so as to evaluate the difference between the conventional algorithm, CI(PC), and a new algorithm, CI(PCnew), that accounts for patients' individual aortic compliance.
Prospective, clinical study.
Intensive care unit of a university hospital.
20 ASA physical status II and III patients following elective cardiac surgery.
360 parallel triplicate determinations of CI (CI(PA), CI(PC), CI(PCnew)) were performed within a 90-minute period during the immediate postoperative period. Prior to the start of the study period, CI(PC) as well as CI(PCnew) were calibrated by triplicate femoral arterial thermodilution measurements. Regression analysis of CI(PA) and CI(PC), as well as CI(PA) and CI(PCnew), revealed r = 0.89, p < 0.001, and r = 0.93, p < 0.001, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis was used for determining the accuracy and precision of CI(PC) and CI(PCnew) compared with CI(PA). The mean differences (m) and standard deviation (SD) between CI(PA) and CI(PC,) as well as CI(PA) and CI(PCnew), resulted in m = -0.312 L/min/m(2), SD = 0.456 L/min/m(2), and m = - 0.140 L/min/m(2), SD = 0.328 L/min/m(2), respectively.
Arterial pulse contour analysis measurement of CI using either algorithm correlates well with CI values derived by pulmonary arterial thermodilution. However, the algorithm introduced in this study proved to be a more accurate predictor of values as derived by pulmonary artery catheter.
使用两种不同算法(CI(PC)、CI(PCnew))通过动脉脉搏轮廓分析测量心脏指数(CI),并与肺动脉热稀释法测得的值(CI(PA))进行比较,以评估传统算法CI(PC)与考虑患者个体主动脉顺应性的新算法CI(PCnew)之间的差异。
前瞻性临床研究。
大学医院重症监护病房。
20例择期心脏手术后的美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)身体状况为II级和III级的患者。
在术后即刻的90分钟内,对CI(CI(PA)、CI(PC)、CI(PCnew))进行了360次平行三联测定。在研究期开始前,通过三联股动脉热稀释测量对CI(PC)以及CI(PCnew)进行校准。CI(PA)与CI(PC)以及CI(PA)与CI(PCnew)的回归分析显示,r分别为0.89,p < 0.001,以及r为0.93,p < 0.001。采用Bland-Altman分析来确定CI(PC)和CI(PCnew)与CI(PA)相比的准确性和精密度。CI(PA)与CI(PC)以及CI(PA)与CI(PCnew)之间的平均差值(m)和标准差(SD)分别为m = -0.312 L/min/m²,SD = 0.456 L/min/m²,以及m = -0.140 L/min/m²,SD = 0.328 L/min/m²。
使用任何一种算法通过动脉脉搏轮廓分析测量CI与通过肺动脉热稀释法得出的CI值具有良好的相关性。然而,本研究中引入的算法被证明是肺动脉导管测得值的更准确预测指标。