Wilford Hall Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
J Intensive Care Med. 2011 Jul-Aug;26(4):255-60. doi: 10.1177/0885066610389973.
We sought to determine which of 3 methods used to evaluate cardiac index (CI) is the most accurate using focused bedside echocardiography (ECHO). We hypothesized that the fractional shortening (FS) method would provide a more accurate estimate of CI than the left ventricular outflow tract/velocity-time integral (LVOT/VTI) or Simpson's methods. This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted in the surgical ICU of an urban level 1 trauma center utilizing all patients with a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) in place. Three surgical intensive care unit (SICU) faculty and 3 fellows underwent focused cardiac ultrasound training. Focused ECHO exams-bedside echocardiographic assessment in trauma/critical care (BEAT)- were performed using the Sonosite portable ultrasound device (Bothall, Washington). Stroke volume (SV) measurements were prospectively obtained on all trauma/SICU patients, with a PAC in place, using FS, LVOT/VTI, and Simpson's methods. The investigators were blinded to the PAC data. From each measurement, CI was calculated and categorized as low, normal, or high, based on a normal range of 2.4 to 4.0 L/min per m(2). Each CI obtained from the PAC was similarly categorized. The association between the BEAT and PAC estimates of CI was evaluated for each method using chi-square goodness of fit. Eighty five BEAT exams were performed on consecutive SICU patients, 56% were on trauma and 44% on emergency general surgery patients. There was a statistically significant association between the CI estimate using the FS method (P = .012), but not the LVOT/VTI (P = .33) or Simpson's method (P = .74). Our data showed a significant association between the PAC estimate of CI and our estimate using the FS method. The other methods were difficult to obtain, subjective, and inaccurate. Fractional shortening was the method of choice to estimate CI for the BEAT exam performed by intensivists in SICU patients.
我们旨在确定在使用床边超声心动图(ECHO)进行集中检查时,评估心指数(CI)的 3 种方法中哪种最准确。我们假设,与左心室流出道/速度时间积分(LVOT/VTI)或辛普森方法相比,分数缩短(FS)方法将提供更准确的 CI 估计值。这是一项在城市一级创伤中心的外科重症监护病房(SICU)进行的前瞻性观察队列研究,该研究使用了所有放置肺动脉导管(PAC)的患者。3 名外科重症监护室(SICU)教员和 3 名研究员接受了集中心脏超声培训。集中的 ECHO 检查 - 创伤/危重病床边超声心动图评估(BEAT)- 使用 Sonosite 便携式超声设备(华盛顿州 Bothall)进行。在所有放置 PAC 的创伤/SICU 患者中,前瞻性地使用 FS、LVOT/VTI 和辛普森方法获得了 SV 测量值。研究人员对 PAC 数据进行了盲法评估。根据 2.4 至 4.0 L/min/m2 的正常范围,对每个测量值进行分类,将 CI 计算为低、正常或高。从每个测量值中,同样根据 PAC 获得的 CI 进行分类。使用卡方拟合优度评估每种方法的 BEAT 和 PAC 估计 CI 之间的关联。在连续的 SICU 患者中进行了 85 次 BEAT 检查,56%为创伤患者,44%为急诊普外科患者。FS 方法(P =.012)的 CI 估计值与其他方法(LVOT/VTI,P =.33;辛普森方法,P =.74)之间存在统计学显著关联。我们的数据显示,PAC 对 CI 的估计与我们使用 FS 方法的估计之间存在显著关联。其他方法难以获得,主观且不准确。在 SICU 患者中,FS 方法是用于估计 BEAT 检查 CI 的首选方法。