Maddison Benjamin, Giudici Riccardo, Calzia Enrico, Wolff Christopher, Hinds Charles, Radermacher Peter, Pearse Rupert M
Intensive Care Unit, Royal London Hospital, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Intensive Care Med. 2008 Nov;34(11):2106-11. doi: 10.1007/s00134-008-1207-4. Epub 2008 Jul 8.
To compare the lithium-thermal double indicator dilution (Li-thermal), indocyanine green-thermal double indicator dilution (ICG-thermal), single thermal indicator dilution (single-thermal) and gravimetric techniques of extravascular lung water volume (EVLW) measurement in porcine models of acute lung injury.
Two animal models designed to invoke a systemic inflammatory response.
Laboratory study.
A total of 12 immature Deutsches Landschwein pigs.
Extravascular lung water volume was measured at four time points using Li-thermal, ICG-thermal and single-thermal techniques. Measurements were performed using existing technology according to manufacturer's instructions. Post-mortem gravimetric EVLW measurements were performed by measuring wet and dry mass of lung tissue. Measurements were compared using the Bland-Altman method. Data are presented as mean (SD).
Data were collected in 12 animals and comparison between all 4 techniques was possible in 10 animals. EVLW measured by gravimetry was 9.2 (+/-3.0)ml kg(-1). When compared to gravimetry, both Li-thermal and ICG-thermal techniques showed minimal bias but wide limits of agreement (LOA) [Li-thermal: bias -1.8 ml kg(-1) (LOA +/- 13.1); ICG-thermal bias -1.0 ml kg(-1) (LOA +/- 6.6)]. Comparison between the single-thermal and gravimetric methods identified both considerable bias and wide LOA [+8.5 ml kg(-1) (LOA +/- 14.5)].
Clinically significant differences between EVLW measurements obtained with the gravimetric method and three in vivo indicator dilution techniques were identified. While none of the techniques could be considered ideal, the ICG-thermal method appeared more reliable than either the Li-thermal or single thermal techniques. Further research is required to determine whether the accuracy of the prototype Li-thermal technique can be improved.
在猪急性肺损伤模型中比较锂热双指示剂稀释法(Li-thermal)、吲哚菁绿热双指示剂稀释法(ICG-thermal)、单热指示剂稀释法(single-thermal)和重量法测定血管外肺水容量(EVLW)的技术。
两种旨在引发全身炎症反应的动物模型。
实验室研究。
总共12只未成熟的德国陆地猪。
在四个时间点使用Li-thermal、ICG-thermal和single-thermal技术测量血管外肺水容量。根据制造商的说明使用现有技术进行测量。通过测量肺组织的湿重和干重来进行死后重量法EVLW测量。使用Bland-Altman方法比较测量结果。数据以平均值(标准差)表示。
在12只动物中收集了数据,10只动物能够对所有4种技术进行比较。重量法测得的EVLW为9.2(±3.0)ml·kg⁻¹。与重量法相比,Li-thermal和ICG-thermal技术均显示出最小偏差,但一致性界限(LOA)较宽[Li-thermal:偏差-1.8 ml·kg⁻¹(LOA±13.1);ICG-thermal偏差-1.0 ml·kg⁻¹(LOA±6.6)]。单热法与重量法之间的比较显示出相当大的偏差和较宽的LOA[+8.5 ml·kg⁻¹(LOA±14.5)]。
确定了重量法与三种体内指示剂稀释技术获得的EVLW测量值之间存在临床显著差异。虽然没有一种技术可被认为是理想的,但ICG-thermal方法似乎比Li-thermal或单热技术更可靠。需要进一步研究以确定原型Li-thermal技术的准确性是否可以提高。