Russell A E, Smith S A, West M J, Aylward P E, McRitchie R J, Hassam R M, Minson R B, Wing L M, Chalmers J P
Department of Medicine, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia.
Br Heart J. 1990 Mar;63(3):195-9. doi: 10.1136/hrt.63.3.195.
The accuracy and reproducibility of indirect measurement of cardiac output at rest by the carbon dioxide rebreathing (indirect Fick) method with an automated respiratory analysis system (Gould 9000IV) were compared with simultaneous measurements made in duplicate by dye dilution and thermodilution in 25 patients having cardiac catheterisation studies. Measurements of cardiac output by the carbon dioxide rebreathing method were not significantly different from those obtained with dye dilution (mean difference -0.3 l/min, SD 0.76, 95% confidence interval -0.7 to 0.1). Thermodilution significantly over-estimated cardiac output by a mean of 2.2 l/min or 39% (SD 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.6 to 2.8) compared with the carbon dioxide rebreathing method and significantly overestimated cardiac output by 1.9 l/min or 31% (SD 1.2, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 2.5) compared with dye dilution. The reproducibility of measurements of cardiac output in individual patients was satisfactory with the dye dilution method but was poor with carbon dioxide rebreathing and thermodilution. Indirect measurement of resting cardiac output by the Gould 9000IV automated carbon dioxide rebreathing method is more accurate but the variability inherent with this method requires that multiple measurements be taken for each determination. Measurement of cardiac output by the thermodilution method by a commercially available cardiac output computer was not satisfactory because not only was there considerable variability between repeat measurements but the method also consistently overestimated cardiac output compared with the dye dilution method.
采用自动呼吸分析系统(Gould 9000IV)通过二氧化碳重呼吸法(间接Fick法)在静息状态下间接测量心输出量的准确性和可重复性,与25例接受心导管检查的患者同时采用染料稀释法和热稀释法重复测量的结果进行了比较。二氧化碳重呼吸法测得的心输出量与染料稀释法测得的结果无显著差异(平均差值-0.3升/分钟,标准差0.76,95%置信区间-0.7至0.1)。与二氧化碳重呼吸法相比,热稀释法显著高估心输出量,平均高估2.2升/分钟或39%(标准差1.5,95%置信区间1.6至2.8);与染料稀释法相比,显著高估心输出量1.9升/分钟或31%(标准差1.2,95%置信区间1.2至2.5)。染料稀释法测量个体患者心输出量的可重复性良好,但二氧化碳重呼吸法和热稀释法的可重复性较差。使用Gould 9000IV自动二氧化碳重呼吸法间接测量静息心输出量更为准确,但该方法固有的变异性要求每次测定都要进行多次测量。使用市售的心输出量计算机通过热稀释法测量心输出量并不令人满意,因为不仅重复测量之间存在相当大的变异性,而且与染料稀释法相比,该方法还始终高估心输出量。