From the Departments of *Anesthesiology and Intensive Care and ‡Cardiac Surgery, Louis Pradel Hospital, Claude Bernard Lyon, Lyon, France; †Department of Anesthesiology, University of California at Irvine School of Medicine, Orange, California; §Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Clinique de la Sauvegarde, Lyon, France; and ∥Université Lyon 1, SFR Lyon-Est Santé - INSERM US 7 - CNRS UMS 3453.
Anesth Analg. 2015 Aug;121(2):383-91. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000753.
Alveolar recruitment maneuvers (ARMs) are known to improve perioperative morbidity but can transiently impact cardiac output (CO). This reproducible hemodynamic perturbation creates a clinical opportunity to test multiple devices during acute changes in CO. The objective of this study was to evaluate the ability of 2 minimally invasive CO monitors, the ECOM (Endotracheal Cardiac Output Monitor) and the esCCO (estimated Continuous Cardiac Output), to measure trends in CO during an ARM in postoperative cardiac surgical patients.
Twenty-seven mechanically ventilated patients were studied in the postoperative intensive care unit setting. Hemodynamic measurements were made at 3 distinct time points: (1) before an ARM at zero end-expiratory pressure; (2) during an ARM at 15 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure; and (3) after the ARM again at zero end-expiratory pressure. Reference CO was obtained from intermittent bolus thermodilution (TDco) using a pulmonary artery catheter. At each of the 3 time points, mean values of 3 CO measurements from each device were collected simultaneously, as well as the corresponding changes in arterial pressure. The coefficient of variation of the 3 sets for each patient at each time point allowed for the calculation of the precision error for each device. Differences between absolute values of CO using the 2 tested methods and TDco were assessed using a Bland-Altman plot. Additionally, the agreement and responsiveness of the changes in CO (ΔTDco, ΔESco, and ΔECco for changes in TDco, esCCO, and ECOM, respectively) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were assessed using both a 4-quadrant plot with the coefficient of correlation concordance (CCC) and a polar plot diagram. A polar concordance rate above 80% was considered clinically acceptable.
Eighty-one sets of 3 CO values were analyzed. Precision error of TDco was approximately 5.1% (interquartile range: 2.8-7.1). Between esCCO and TDco, the mean bias was +0.7 L/min with limits of agreement of -2.1 L/min and +3.5 L/min. Between ECOM and TDco, the mean bias was +0.2 L/min with limits of agreement of -2.0 L/min and +2.4 L/min. The CCC between ΔECco and ΔTDco (0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72-0.89]) was significantly higher (P = 0.0053) than the CCC between ΔESco and ΔTDco (0.42 [95% CI, 0.20-0.59]), but not statistically different (P = 0.16) than the CCC between ΔMAP and ΔTDco (0.69 [95% CI, 0.54-0.80]). Polar plot analysis showed an angular bias with radial agreement limits of -29° ± 38° between ΔESco and ΔTDco and -15° ± 29° between ΔECco and ΔTDco. Four-quadrant concordance rate was 81% (95% CI, 74-88) between ΔESco and ΔTDco and 100% between ΔECco and ΔTDco. Polar concordance rates were 41% (95% CI, 34-48) between ΔESco and ΔTDco and 85% (95% CI, 79-90) between ΔECco and ΔTDco.
Compared to pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution, both ECOM and esCCO underestimate changes in CO during an ARM in postoperative cardiac surgical patients. However, ΔECco is within the angular limits of acceptable agreement and may be as efficient as invasive arterial pressure monitoring to track CO changes. In contrast, esCCO is not able to adequately track CO in these specific conditions.
肺泡复张手法 (ARM) 已知可改善围手术期发病率,但可短暂影响心输出量 (CO)。这种可重复的血流动力学干扰为在 CO 急性变化期间测试多种设备创造了临床机会。本研究的目的是评估两种微创 CO 监测仪,即 ECOM(气管内心输出量监测仪)和 esCCO(估计连续心输出量),在心脏手术后患者接受 ARM 时测量 CO 趋势的能力。
在术后重症监护病房环境中对 27 例机械通气患者进行了研究。在 3 个不同时间点进行了血流动力学测量:(1) 在零呼气末正压时进行 ARM 之前;(2) 在 15 cm H2O 呼气末正压时进行 ARM 期间;以及 (3) 在再次进行 ARM 时回到零呼气末正压后。参考 CO 通过肺动脉导管从间歇推注热稀释 (TDco) 获得。在每个时间点的 3 个时间点,同时收集每个设备的 3 次 CO 测量的平均值,以及相应的动脉压变化。每位患者每个时间点的 3 组的变异系数允许计算每个设备的精度误差。使用 Bland-Altman 图评估使用两种测试方法的 CO 绝对值之间的差异。此外,还使用四象限图和相关一致性系数 (CCC) 以及极坐标图评估 CO(TDco、esCCO 和 ECOM 变化时的 ΔTDco、ΔESco 和 ΔECco)和平均动脉压 (MAP) 的变化的一致性和响应性。认为极坐标一致性率超过 80%为临床可接受。
分析了 81 组 3 次 CO 值。TDco 的精度误差约为 5.1%(四分位距:2.8-7.1)。与 TDco 相比,esCCO 的平均偏差为 +0.7 L/min,一致性界限为 -2.1 L/min 和 +3.5 L/min。与 TDco 相比,ECOM 的平均偏差为 +0.2 L/min,一致性界限为 -2.0 L/min 和 +2.4 L/min。ΔECco 和 ΔTDco 之间的 CCC(0.82 [95%置信区间 (CI),0.72-0.89])明显更高(P = 0.0053),与 ΔESco 和 ΔTDco 之间的 CCC(0.42 [95% CI,0.20-0.59])相比,虽然没有统计学差异(P = 0.16),但与 ΔMAP 和 ΔTDco 之间的 CCC(0.69 [95% CI,0.54-0.80])相似。极坐标分析显示在 ΔESco 和 ΔTDco 之间的角度偏差和径向一致性界限为 -29° ± 38°,在 ΔECco 和 ΔTDco 之间为 -15° ± 29°。四象限一致性率为 81%(95% CI,74-88)在 ΔESco 和 ΔTDco 之间,为 100%在 ΔECco 和 ΔTDco 之间。极坐标一致性率为 41%(95% CI,34-48)在 ΔESco 和 ΔTDco 之间,为 85%(95% CI,79-90)在 ΔECco 和 ΔTDco 之间。
与肺动脉导管热稀释相比,ECOM 和 esCCO 均低估了心脏手术后患者在接受 ARM 时 CO 的变化。然而,ΔECco 在可接受的一致性角度限制内,可能与侵入性动脉压监测一样有效,可用于跟踪 CO 变化。相比之下,esCCO 无法在这些特定条件下充分跟踪 CO。