Han Sangbin, Lee Jong Hwan, Kim Gaabsoo, Ko Justin Sangwook, Choi Soo Joo, Kwon Ji Hae, Heo Burn Young, Gwak Mi Sook
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
PLoS One. 2015 May 27;10(5):e0127981. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127981. eCollection 2015.
Thermodilution technique using a pulmonary artery catheter is widely used for the assessment of cardiac output (CO) in patients undergoing liver transplantation. However, the unclearness of the risk-benefit ratio of this method has led to an interest in less invasive modalities. Thus, we evaluated whether noninvasive bioreactance CO monitoring is interchangeable with thermodilution technique.
Nineteen recipients undergoing adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation were enrolled in this prospective observational study. COs were recorded automatically by the two devices and compared simultaneously at 3-minute intervals. The Bland-Altman plot was used to evaluate the agreement between bioreactance and thermodilution. Clinically acceptable agreement was defined as a percentage error of limits of agreement <30%. The four quadrant plot was used to evaluate concordance between bioreactance and thermodilution. Clinically acceptable concordance was defined as a concordance rate >92%.
A total of 2640 datasets were collected. The mean CO difference between the two techniques was 0.9 l/min, and the 95% limits of agreement were -3.5 l/min and 5.4 l/min with a percentage error of 53.9%. The percentage errors in the dissection, anhepatic, and reperfusion phase were 50.6%, 56.1%, and 53.5%, respectively. The concordance rate between the two techniques was 54.8%.
Bioreactance and thermodilution failed to show acceptable interchangeability in terms of both estimating CO and tracking CO changes in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Thus, the use of bioreactance as an alternative CO monitoring to thermodilution, in spite of its noninvasiveness, would be hard to recommend in these surgical patients.
使用肺动脉导管的热稀释技术广泛应用于肝移植患者的心输出量(CO)评估。然而,该方法风险效益比不明确,引发了人们对侵入性较小的方法的兴趣。因此,我们评估了无创生物电阻抗心输出量监测与热稀释技术是否可互换。
19例接受成人对成人活体肝移植的受者纳入了这项前瞻性观察研究。两种设备自动记录心输出量,并每隔3分钟同时进行比较。采用Bland-Altman图评估生物电阻抗法与热稀释法之间的一致性。临床可接受的一致性定义为一致性界限的百分比误差<30%。采用四象限图评估生物电阻抗法与热稀释法之间的一致性。临床可接受的一致性定义为一致率>92%。
共收集了2640个数据集。两种技术之间的平均心输出量差异为0.9升/分钟,95%一致性界限为-3.5升/分钟和5.4升/分钟,百分比误差为53.9%。解剖期、无肝期和再灌注期的百分比误差分别为50.6%、56.1%和53.5%。两种技术之间的一致率为54.8%。
在肝移植患者中,无论是估计心输出量还是跟踪心输出量变化,生物电阻抗法和热稀释法均未显示出可接受的互换性。因此,尽管生物电阻抗法具有无创性,但在这些手术患者中,很难推荐将其作为热稀释法的心输出量监测替代方法。