Botero Monica, Kirby David, Lobato Emilio B, Staples Edward D, Gravenstein Nikolaus
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Florida College of Medicine and the Gainesville Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, FL, USA.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2004 Oct;18(5):563-72. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2004.07.005.
A noninvasive continuous cardiac output system (NICO) has been developed recently. NICO uses a ratio of the change in the end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure and carbon dioxide elimination in response to a brief period of partial rebreathing to measure CO. The aim of this study was to compare the agreement among NICO, bolus (TDCO), and continuous thermodilution (CCO), with transit-time flowmetry of the ascending aorta using an ultrasonic flow probe (UFP) before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).
Prospective, observational human study.
Veterans Affairs Medical Center Hospital.
Sixty-eight patients.
Matched sets of CO measurements between NICO, TDCO, CCO, and UFP were collected in 68 patients undergoing elective CABG at specific time periods before and after separation from CPB. After anesthetic induction, all patients had an NICO sensor attached between the endotracheal tube and the breathing circuit, a PAC floated into the pulmonary artery for TDCO and CCO monitoring, and a UFP positioned on the ascending aorta and used for the reference CO. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare the agreement among the different methods.
Bland-Altman analysis of CO measurements before CPB yielded a bias, precision, and percent error of 0.04 L/min +/- 1.07 L/min (44.8%) for NICO, 0.18 L/min +/- 1.01 L/min (41.7%) for TDCO, and 0.29 L/min +/- 1.40 L/min (57.5%) for CCO compared with simultaneous UFP CO measurements, respectively. After separation from CPB (average 29 mins), bias, precision, and percent error were -0.46 L/min +/- 1.06 L/min (37.3%) for NICO, 0.35 L/min +/- 1.39 L/min (46.1%) for TDCO, and 0.36 L/min +/- 1.96 L/min (64.7%) for CCO compared with UFP CO measurements, respectively.
Before initiation of CPB, the accuracy for all 3 techniques was similar. After separation from CPB, the tendency was for NICO to underestimate CO and for TDCO and CCO to overestimate it. NICO offers an alternative to invasive CO measurement.
一种无创连续心输出量监测系统(NICO)最近已被开发出来。NICO通过利用呼气末二氧化碳分压变化与二氧化碳排出量的比值,来响应一段短暂的部分重复呼吸过程,以此测量心输出量(CO)。本研究的目的是比较在体外循环(CPB)前后,NICO、团注法(TDCO)和连续热稀释法(CCO)与使用超声流量探头(UFP)测量升主动脉通过时间血流测定法之间的一致性。
前瞻性观察性人体研究。
退伍军人事务医疗中心医院。
68名患者。
在68例行择期冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的患者中,于脱离CPB前后的特定时间段,收集NICO、TDCO、CCO和UFP相匹配的CO测量值。麻醉诱导后,所有患者在气管内导管与呼吸回路之间连接一个NICO传感器,置入肺动脉导管用于TDCO和CCO监测,并将一个UFP置于升主动脉上用于作为参考CO测量。采用Bland-Altman分析来比较不同方法之间的一致性。
与同步UFP测量的CO相比,CPB前CO测量的Bland-Altman分析显示,NICO的偏差、精密度和误差百分比分别为0.04 L/min±1.07 L/min(44.8%),TDCO为0.18 L/min±1.01 L/min(41.7%),CCO为0.29 L/min±1.40 L/min(57.5%)。脱离CPB后(平均29分钟),与UFP测量的CO相比,NICO的偏差、精密度和误差百分比分别为-0.46 L/min±1.06 L/min(37.3%),TDCO为0.35 L/min±1.39 L/min(46.1%),CCO为0.36 L/min±1.96 L/min(64.7%)。
在开始CPB之前,这三种技术的准确性相似。脱离CPB后,趋势是NICO低估CO,而TDCO和CCO高估CO。NICO为有创CO测量提供了一种替代方法。