Metzelder Sebastian M, Coburn Mark, Stoppe Christian, Fries Michael, Simon Tim-Philipp, Reinges Marcus H T, Höllig Anke, Rossaint Rolf, Marx Gernot, Rex Steffen
Crit Care. 2014 Feb 5;18(1):R25. doi: 10.1186/cc13715.
Calibrated arterial pulse contour analysis has become an established method for the continuous monitoring of cardiac output (PCCO). However, data on its validity in hemodynamically instable patients beyond the setting of cardiac surgery are scarce. We performed the present study to assess the validity and precision of PCCO-measurements using the PiCCO™-device compared to transpulmonary thermodilution derived cardiac output (TPCO) as the reference technique in neurosurgical patients requiring high-dose vasopressor-therapy.
A total of 20 patients (16 females and 4 males) were included in this prospective observational clinical trial. All of them suffered from subarachnoid hemorrhage (Hunt&Hess grade I-V) due to rupture of a cerebral arterial aneurysm and underwent high-dose vasopressor therapy for the prevention/treatment of delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI). Simultaneous CO measurements by bolus TPCO and PCCO were obtained at baseline as well as 2 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after inclusion.
PCCO- and TPCO-measurements were obtained at baseline as well as 2 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after inclusion. Patients received vasoactive support with (mean ± standard deviation, SD) 0.57 ± 0.49 μg · kg-1 · min-1 norepinephrine resulting in a mean arterial pressure of 103 ± 13 mmHg and a systemic vascular resistance of 943 ± 248 dyn · s · cm-5. 136 CO-data pairs were analyzed. TPCO ranged from 5.2 to 14.3 l · min-1 (mean ± SD 8.5 ± 2.0 l · min-1) and PCCO ranged from 5.0 to 14.4 l · min-1 (mean ± SD 8.6 ± 2.0 l · min-1). Bias and limits of agreement (1.96 SD of the bias) were -0.03 ± 0.82 l · min-1 and 1.62 l · min-1, resulting in an overall percentage error of 18.8%. The precision of PCCO-measurements was 17.8%. Insufficient trending ability was indicated by concordance rates of 74% (exclusion zone of 15% (1.29 l · min-1)) and 67% (without exclusion zone), as well as by polar plot analysis.
In neurosurgical patients requiring extensive vasoactive support, CO values obtained by calibrated PCCO showed clinically and statistically acceptable agreement with TPCO-measurements, but the results from concordance and polar plot analysis indicate an unreliable trending ability.
校准动脉脉搏轮廓分析已成为连续监测心输出量(PCCO)的既定方法。然而,在心脏手术以外血流动力学不稳定患者中,关于其有效性的数据很少。我们进行了本研究,以评估在需要大剂量血管升压药治疗的神经外科患者中,使用PiCCO™设备测量PCCO的有效性和精确性,并将其与经肺热稀释法测得的心输出量(TPCO)作为参考技术进行比较。
本前瞻性观察性临床试验共纳入20例患者(16例女性和4例男性)。他们均因脑动脉瘤破裂而发生蛛网膜下腔出血(Hunt&Hess分级I-V级),并接受大剂量血管升压药治疗以预防/治疗迟发性脑缺血(DCI)。在基线以及纳入后2小时、6小时、12小时、24小时、48小时和72小时,通过团注TPCO和PCCO同时测量心输出量。
在基线以及纳入后2小时、6小时、12小时、24小时、48小时和72小时获得了PCCO和TPCO测量值。患者接受血管活性药物支持,使用(平均±标准差,SD)0.57±0.49μg·kg-1·min-1去甲肾上腺素,平均动脉压为103±13mmHg,全身血管阻力为943±248dyn·s·cm-5。分析了136对心输出量数据。TPCO范围为5.2至14.3l·min-1(平均±SD 8.5±2.0l·min-1),PCCO范围为5.0至14.4l·min-1(平均±SD 8.6±2.0l·min-1)。偏差和一致性界限(偏差的1.96倍标准差)为-0.03±0.82l·min-1和1.62l·min-1,总体百分比误差为18.8%。PCCO测量的精确性为17.8%。一致性率分别为74%(排除区为15%(1.29l·min-1))和67%(无排除区)以及极坐标图分析表明趋势能力不足。
在需要广泛血管活性支持的神经外科患者中,校准后的PCCO获得的心输出量值与TPCO测量值在临床和统计学上具有可接受的一致性,但一致性和极坐标图分析结果表明趋势能力不可靠。