Galstian G M, Bychinin M V, Gorodetskiĭ V M, Aleksanian M Zh
Anesteziol Reanimatol. 2011 May-Jun(3):48-53.
The aim of the study is to compare results of the assessment of cardiac output and intrathoracic blood volume by two methods--transpulmonary (TTD) and ultrasound (UTD) thermodilution.
The prospective study included 58 patients (sepsis, septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intracranial haemorrhages), which underwent femoral artery catheterization with "Pulsiocath" 5Fr catheter (PICCO technology). For the means of ultrasound the catheter was connected to the central venous catheter by an arteriovenous loop. Sensors on arterial and venous ends of the loop registered the time and the volume of the indicator, blood properties and the ultrasound curve. Cooled (0 to 8 C) 5% glucose solution was used as an indicator for TTD, while heated (up to 37C) 0.9% NaCl solution was used as an indicator for the ultrasound. The cardiac output (CO) was measured by TTD and UTD, the global end diastolic volume (GEDV) by TTD, its analogue total end diastolic volume (TEDV) by UTD, intrathoracic blood volume (ITBV) by TTD and central blood volume (CBV) by UTD. 218 pairs of measurements were conducted. Oscillations of CO (TTD) were 2.76-16.3 l/min (8.6 +/- 2.48 l/min) and of CO (UTD)--2.92-18.1 l/min (8.72 +/- 2.65 l/min). There was a strong correlation between CO (TTD) and CO (UTD). The systematic mistake was 0.12 l/min, percentage based mistake--20.9%. ITBV correlated with CBV. There was a big systematic mistake found, which measured as much as 323 ml, the percentage based mistake was 36.5%. The correlation between GEDV and TEDV was (r = 0.70, p < 0.01). The TTD ejection fraction (23.2 +/- 5.6%) was lower (p < 0.01), than by UTD (57.8 +/- 15.2%).
Both methods demonstrate close values of CO. GEDV was higher than TEDV and physiological heart volume. The absolute values of GEDV and ITBV measured by TTD are higher than the actual ones, although they reflect the changes of blood volume and can be used as dynamic preload parameters.
本研究旨在比较两种方法——经肺(TTD)和超声(UTD)热稀释法评估心输出量和胸腔内血容量的结果。
前瞻性研究纳入58例患者(脓毒症、感染性休克、急性呼吸窘迫综合征、颅内出血),这些患者接受了使用“Pulsiocath”5Fr导管(PICCO技术)的股动脉插管。对于超声检查,导管通过动静脉环路与中心静脉导管相连。环路动脉端和静脉端的传感器记录指示剂的时间和体积、血液特性以及超声曲线。冷却(0至8摄氏度)的5%葡萄糖溶液用作TTD的指示剂,而加热(高达37摄氏度)的0.9%氯化钠溶液用作超声检查的指示剂。通过TTD和UTD测量心输出量(CO),通过TTD测量全心舒张末期容积(GEDV),通过UTD测量其类似物总舒张末期容积(TEDV),通过TTD测量胸腔内血容量(ITBV),通过UTD测量中心血容量(CBV)。共进行了218对测量。CO(TTD)的波动范围为2.76 - 16.3升/分钟(8.6±2.48升/分钟),CO(UTD)的波动范围为2.92 - 18.1升/分钟(8.72±2.65升/分钟)。CO(TTD)与CO(UTD)之间存在强相关性。系统误差为0.12升/分钟,百分比误差为20.9%。ITBV与CBV相关。发现存在较大的系统误差,高达323毫升,百分比误差为36.5%。GEDV与TEDV之间的相关性为(r = 0.70,p < 0.01)。TTD射血分数(23.2±5.6%)低于UTD(57.8±15.2%)(p < 0.01)。
两种方法显示的CO值相近。GEDV高于TEDV和生理心脏容积。通过TTD测量的GEDV和ITBV的绝对值高于实际值,尽管它们反映了血容量的变化且可作为动态前负荷参数使用。