Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL (N.N.); Department of Internal Medicine (J.T.T., B.D.L., M.O.G., A.T.T., J.A.d.L.,D.K.M.) and Cardiovascular Division (J.T.T., B.D.L., M.O.G., A.T.T., J.A.d.L., D.K.M.), the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; Institute of Exercise and Environmental Medicine at the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, Dallas, TX (B.D.L.); the Department of Clinical Sciences at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX (C.R.A., D.K.M.); Cardiology Division, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX (R.A.L.); and the Cardiovascular Division, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR (J.E.C.).
Circulation. 2014 Jan 14;129(2):203-10. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.003334. Epub 2013 Sep 27.
The Fick principle (cardiac output = oxygen uptake ( O2)/systemic arterio-venous oxygen difference) is used to determine cardiac output in numerous clinical situations. However, estimated rather than measured O2 is commonly used because of complexities of the measurement, though the accuracy of estimation remains uncertain in contemporary clinical practice.
From 1996 to 2005, resting O2 was measured via the Douglas bag technique in adult patients undergoing right heart catheterization. Resting O2 was estimated by each of 3 published formulae. Agreement between measured and estimated O2 was assessed overall, and across strata of body mass index, sex, and age. The study included 535 patients, with mean age 55 yrs, mean body mass index 28.4 kg/m2; 53% women; 64% non-white. Mean (±standard deviation) measured O2 was 241 ± 57 ml/min. Measured O2 differed significantly from values derived from all 3 formulae, with median (interquartile range) absolute differences of 28.4 (13.1, 50.2) ml/min, 37.7 (19.4, 63.3) ml/min, and 31.7 (14.4, 54.5) ml/min, for the formulae of Dehmer, LaFarge, and Bergstra, respectively (P<0.0001 for each). The measured and estimated values differed by >25% in 17% to 25% of patients depending on the formula used. Median absolute differences were greater in severely obese patients (body mass index > 40 kg/m2), but were not affected by sex or age.
Estimates of resting O2 derived from conventional formulae are inaccurate, especially in severely obese individuals. When accurate hemodynamic assessment is important for clinical decision-making, O2 should be directly measured.
Fick 原理(心输出量=氧摄取量(O2)/全身动静脉氧差)用于在许多临床情况下确定心输出量。然而,由于测量的复杂性,通常使用估计而不是测量的 O2,尽管在当代临床实践中估计的准确性仍然不确定。
1996 年至 2005 年,对接受右心导管检查的成年患者通过 Douglas 袋技术测量静息 O2。使用 3 种已发表的公式中的每一种来估计静息 O2。总体上评估了测量和估计的 O2 之间的一致性,并根据体重指数、性别和年龄进行了分层。该研究包括 535 例患者,平均年龄为 55 岁,平均体重指数为 28.4kg/m2;53%为女性;64%为非白人。(±标准差)测量的 O2 平均值为 241±57ml/min。测量的 O2 与所有 3 种公式得出的值有显著差异,中位数(四分位间距)绝对差值分别为 28.4(13.1,50.2)ml/min、37.7(19.4,63.3)ml/min 和 31.7(14.4,54.5)ml/min,分别为 Dehmer、LaFarge 和 Bergstra 公式(每种公式均 P<0.0001)。根据使用的公式,17%至 25%的患者的测量值和估计值相差>25%。在肥胖患者(体重指数>40kg/m2)中,中位数绝对差值更大,但不受性别或年龄的影响。
来自常规公式的静息 O2 估计值不准确,尤其是在严重肥胖个体中。当准确的血液动力学评估对临床决策很重要时,应直接测量 O2。