Sander Michael, von Heymann Christian, Foer Achim, von Dossow Vera, Grosse Joachim, Dushe Simon, Konertz Wolfgang F, Spies Claudia D
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Charité, Campus Charité Mitte, University Medicine, Schumannstrasse 20/21, 10098 Berlin, Germany.
Crit Care. 2005;9(6):R729-34. doi: 10.1186/cc3903. Epub 2005 Nov 4.
Monitoring of the cardiac output by continuous arterial pulse contour (COPiCCOpulse) analysis is a clinically validated procedure proved to be an alternative to the pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution cardiac output (COPACtherm) in cardiac surgical patients. There is ongoing debate, however, of whether the COPiCCOpulse is accurate after profound hemodynamic changes. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the COPiCCOpulse after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) with a simultaneous measurement of the COPACtherm.
After ethical approval and written informed consent, data of 45 patients were analyzed during this prospective study. During coronary artery bypass graft surgery, the aortic transpulmonary thermodilution cardiac output (COPiCCOtherm) and the COPACtherm were determined in all patients. Prior to surgery, the COPiCCOpulse was calibrated by triple transpulmonary thermodilution measurement of the COPiCCOtherm. After termination of CPB, the COPiCCOpulse was documented. Both COPACtherm and COPiCCOtherm were also simultaneously determined and documented.
Regression analysis between COPACtherm and COPiCCOtherm prior to CPB showed a correlation coefficient of 0.95 (P < 0.001), and after CPB showed a correlation coefficient of 0.82 (P < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean bias and limits of agreement of 0.0 l/minute and -1.4 to +1.4 l/minute prior to CPB and of 0.3 l/minute and -1.9 to +2.5 l/minute after CPB, respectively. Regression analysis of COPiCCOpulse versus COPiCCOtherm and of COPiCCOpulse versus COPACtherm after CPB showed a correlation coefficient of 0.67 (P < 0.001) and 0.63 (P < 0.001), respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean bias and limits of agreement of -1.1 l/minute and -1.9 to +4.1 l/minute versus -1.4 l/minute and -4.8 to +2.0 l/minute, respectively.
We observed an excellent correlation of COPiCCOtherm and COPACtherm measurement prior to CPB. Pulse contour analysis did not yield reliable results with acceptable accuracy and limits of agreement under difficult conditions after weaning from CPB in cardiac surgical patients. The pulse contour analysis thus should be re-calibrated as soon as possible, to prevent false therapeutic consequences.
通过连续动脉脉搏轮廓(COPiCCOpulse)分析监测心输出量是一种经过临床验证的程序,已被证明是心脏手术患者中肺动脉导管热稀释法心输出量(COPACtherm)的替代方法。然而,对于在血流动力学发生显著变化后COPiCCOpulse是否准确,目前仍存在争议。因此,本研究的目的是比较体外循环(CPB)后COPiCCOpulse与同时测量的COPACtherm。
在获得伦理批准并取得书面知情同意后,对本前瞻性研究中的45例患者的数据进行了分析。在冠状动脉旁路移植手术期间,测定了所有患者的主动脉跨肺热稀释心输出量(COPiCCOtherm)和COPACtherm。手术前,通过对COPiCCOtherm进行三次跨肺热稀释测量来校准COPiCCOpulse。CPB结束后,记录COPiCCOpulse。同时也测定并记录了COPACtherm和COPiCCOtherm。
CPB前COPACtherm与COPiCCOtherm之间的回归分析显示相关系数为0.95(P<0.001),CPB后相关系数为0.82(P<0.001)。Bland-Altman分析显示,CPB前平均偏差和一致性界限分别为0.0升/分钟和-1.4至+1.4升/分钟,CPB后分别为0.3升/分钟和-1.9至+2.5升/分钟。CPB后COPiCCOpulse与COPiCCOtherm以及COPiCCOpulse与COPACtherm的回归分析显示相关系数分别为0.67(P<0.001)和0.63(P<0.001)。Bland-Altman分析显示平均偏差和一致性界限分别为-1.1升/分钟和-1.9至+4.1升/分钟以及-1.4升/分钟和-4.8至+2.0升/分钟。
我们观察到CPB前COPiCCOtherm与COPACtherm测量之间具有良好的相关性。在心脏手术患者脱离CPB后的困难条件下,脉搏轮廓分析未能产生具有可接受准确性和一致性界限的可靠结果。因此,应尽快重新校准脉搏轮廓分析,以防止产生错误的治疗后果。