Spöhr F, Hettrich P, Bauer H, Haas U, Martin E, Böttiger B W
Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Intensive Care Med. 2007 Oct;33(10):1805-10. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0703-2. Epub 2007 Jun 5.
To compare a modified pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) and pulse-contour analysis by the PiCCO (Pulsion Medical Systems, Munich, Germany) system for continuous assessment of cardiac output in patients with septic shock. In addition, to assess the relationships between an index of global end-diastolic volume (GEDV) derived by the PiCCO system with traditional PAC-derived indicators of filling: central venous pressure; pulmonary artery occlusion pressure; and right ventricular end-diastolic volume (RVEDV).
Prospective cohort study.
Surgical intensive care unit of a university hospital.
14 patients with septic shock.
None.
A significant correlation was found between continuous cardiac output by PAC (CCO(PAC)) and by pulse-contour analysis (r (2) = 0.714, p < 0.0001), accompanied by a bias of 0.1 l min(-1) and a precision of 2.7 l min(-1). The correlation between CCO(PAC) and cardiac output measured by transcardiopulmonary thermodilution was also significant (r (2) = 0.781, p < 0.0001). There was a bias for the two methods of 0.2 l min(-1), and a precision of 2.2 lmin(-1). The GEDV showed no correlation with central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, or RVEDV.
In patients with septic shock, the averaged bias in continuous measurement of cardiac output by both a modified pulmonary artery catheter and pulse-contour analysis was small, but variability was large. No correlation was found between GEDV and RVEDV. The clinical importance of different cardiac filling parameters needs further investigation.
比较改良肺动脉导管(PAC)和德国慕尼黑普升医疗系统公司的PiCCO系统通过脉搏轮廓分析对感染性休克患者的心输出量进行连续评估的情况。此外,评估PiCCO系统得出的全心舒张末期容积(GEDV)指数与传统PAC得出的充盈指标之间的关系:中心静脉压;肺动脉闭塞压;以及右心室舒张末期容积(RVEDV)。
前瞻性队列研究。
大学医院的外科重症监护病房。
14例感染性休克患者。
无。
发现PAC连续心输出量(CCO(PAC))与脉搏轮廓分析得出的连续心输出量之间存在显著相关性(r² = 0.714,p < 0.0001),偏差为0.1 l min⁻¹,精确度为2.7 l min⁻¹。CCO(PAC)与经心肺热稀释法测量的心输出量之间的相关性也很显著(r² = 0.781,p < 0.0001)。两种方法的偏差为0.2 l min⁻¹,精确度为2.2 l min⁻¹。GEDV与中心静脉压、肺动脉闭塞压或RVEDV均无相关性。
在感染性休克患者中,改良肺动脉导管和脉搏轮廓分析连续测量心输出量的平均偏差较小,但变异性较大。未发现GEDV与RVEDV之间存在相关性。不同心脏充盈参数的临床重要性需要进一步研究。