Peyton P
Department of Anaesthesia, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and University Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2014 May;42(3):340-9. doi: 10.1177/0310057X1404200311.
Advanced haemodynamic monitoring employing minimally invasive cardiac output measurement may lead to significant improvements in patient outcomes in major surgery. However, the precision (scatter) of measurement of available generic technologies has been shown to be unsatisfactory with percentage error of agreement with bolus thermodilution (% error) of 40% to 50%. Simultaneous measurement and averaging by two or more technologies may reduce random measurement scatter and improve precision. This concept, called the hybrid method, was tested by comparing accuracy and precision of measurement relative to bolus thermodilution using combinations of three component methods. Thirty patients scheduled for either elective cardiac surgery or liver transplantation were studied. Agreement with simultaneous bolus thermodilution of hybrid combinations of continuous thermodilution (QtCCO) or Vigeleo™/FloTrac™ pulse contour measurement (QtFT) with pulmonary Capnotracking (QtCO2) was assessed pre- and post-cardiopulmonary bypass or pre- and post-reperfusion of the donor liver and compared with that of the component methods alone. Hybridisation of QtCO2 (% error 42.2) and QtCCO (% error 51.3) achieved significantly better precision (% error 31.3) than the component methods (P=0.0004) and (P=0.0195). Due to poor inherent precision of QtFT (% error 82.8), hybrid combination of QtFT with QtCO2 did not result in better precision than QtCO2 alone. Hybrid measurement can approach a 30% error, which is recommended as the upper limit for acceptability. This is a practical option where at least one component method, such as Capnotracking, is automated and does not increase the cost or complexity of the measurement process.
采用微创心输出量测量的高级血流动力学监测可能会显著改善大手术患者的预后。然而,现有的通用技术测量精度(离散度)并不理想,与团注热稀释法的一致性百分比误差(%误差)为40%至50%。通过两种或更多技术同时测量并求平均值可能会减少随机测量离散度并提高精度。这种被称为混合法的概念,通过使用三种组成方法的组合,比较相对于团注热稀释法的测量准确性和精度进行了测试。研究了30例计划进行择期心脏手术或肝移植的患者。在体外循环前后或供体肝脏再灌注前后,评估连续热稀释法(QtCCO)或Vigeleo™/FloTrac™脉搏轮廓测量法(QtFT)与肺二氧化碳描记法(QtCO2)的混合组合与同时进行的团注热稀释法的一致性,并与单独的组成方法进行比较。QtCO2(%误差42.2)和QtCCO(%误差51.3)的混合比单独的组成方法具有显著更好的精度(%误差31.3)(P = 0.0004)和(P = 0.0195)。由于QtFT固有的精度较差(%误差82.8),QtFT与QtCO2的混合组合并未比单独的QtCO2产生更好的精度。混合测量的误差可接近30%,建议将其作为可接受性的上限。这是一种实际的选择,其中至少一种组成方法,如二氧化碳描记法,是自动化的,并且不会增加测量过程的成本或复杂性。