Donati A, Nardella R, Gabbanelli V, Scarcella M, Romanelli M, Romagnoli L, Botticelli L, Pantanetti S, Pelaia P
Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Department of Neurosciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Minerva Anestesiol. 2008 Jul-Aug;74(7-8):367-74. Epub 2008 Apr 18.
Both PiCCO and LiDCO can provide dynamic preload parameters, pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV). The PiCCO device also provides a measure of intrathoracic blood volume index (ITBVI). We investigated the agreement between SVV and PPV, as well as the reliability of LiDCO- and PiCCO-measured SVV, PPV and ITBVI, in detecting fluid responsiveness before and after fluid challenge (FC).
We performed a prospective clinical study in University Hospital ICU. Nine adult ICU patients with cardiovascular instability were enrolled in the study. All patients were sedated and mechanically ventilated with intermittent positive pressure ventilation. The PiCCO and LiDCO systems were both connected to each patient. The PiCCO pulse waveform system was joined by a 5-French (Fr) thermistor-tipped arterial catheter inserted into the femoral artery. LiDCO measurements were performed through radial artery pulse contour analysis. Fluid challenge was performed using a rapid infusion of 7 mL/kg of 6% hydroxyethylstarch over 30 min.
Measurements of CI, ITBVI, SVV, and PVV were made using both techniques before and after FC. Pre-FC cardiac index (CI) measurements were similar with both devices, although the reading was higher after FC with the PiCCO device (P<0.001). The correlation coefficient between PiCCO-CI and LiDCO-CI was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.93; P<0.001); for P-PPV and L-PPV, it was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.49 to 0.88; P<0.001). Only ITBV had a significant correlation with LiDCO-CI or PiCCO-CI.
We found a narrow bias but less accurate precision in cardiac index values measured by a radial artery-site LiDCO catheter and a femoral artery-site PiCCO catheter, with poor agreement between radial and femoral-derived SVV and PPV measurements. ITBVI proved to be the best predictor of fluid responsiveness. The SVV does not seem to be reliable for preload optimization in ICU patients.
脉搏指示连续心输出量(PiCCO)和锂稀释连续心输出量(LiDCO)都能提供动态前负荷参数,即脉压变异度(PPV)和每搏量变异度(SVV)。PiCCO设备还能测量胸腔内血容量指数(ITBVI)。我们研究了SVV与PPV之间的一致性,以及LiDCO和PiCCO测量的SVV、PPV及ITBVI在液体冲击(FC)前后检测液体反应性方面的可靠性。
我们在大学医院重症监护病房进行了一项前瞻性临床研究。9例心血管功能不稳定的成年重症监护患者纳入研究。所有患者均接受镇静并采用间歇正压通气进行机械通气。PiCCO和LiDCO系统均连接到每位患者。PiCCO脉搏波形系统通过一根插入股动脉的5法国(Fr)热敏电阻尖端动脉导管连接。LiDCO测量通过桡动脉脉搏轮廓分析进行。通过在30分钟内快速输注7ml/kg的6%羟乙基淀粉进行液体冲击。
在FC前后使用两种技术测量心脏指数(CI)、ITBVI、SVV和脉压变异(PVV)。FC前,两种设备测量的心脏指数(CI)相似,尽管FC后PiCCO设备的读数更高(P<0.001)。PiCCO-CI与LiDCO-CI之间的相关系数为0.85(95%CI:0.69至0.93;P<0.001);对于P-PPV和L-PPV,相关系数为0.74(95%CI:0.49至0.88;P<0.001)。只有ITBV与LiDCO-CI或PiCCO-CI有显著相关性。
我们发现通过桡动脉部位的LiDCO导管和股动脉部位的PiCCO导管测量的心脏指数值存在较小偏差但精度较低,桡动脉和股动脉来源的SVV及PPV测量之间一致性较差。ITBVI被证明是液体反应性的最佳预测指标。SVV似乎对于重症监护病房患者的前负荷优化不可靠。