Suppr超能文献

中心静脉导管不同心内位置对采用经肺热稀释法进行血流动力学监测的影响。

Influence of different infracardial positions of central venous catheters in hemodynamic monitoring using the transpulmonal thermodilution method.

作者信息

Kellner Patrick, Schleusener Viola, Bauerfeind Frank, Soukup Jens

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.

Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University Hospital, Martin-Luther-University, Halle-Wittenberg, Halle/Saale, Germany.

出版信息

J Clin Monit Comput. 2016 Oct;30(5):629-40. doi: 10.1007/s10877-015-9762-z. Epub 2015 Sep 4.

Abstract

Hemodynamic measurements are often conducted by the transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD)-based PiCCO(®)-system. This requires a central-venous (CVC) and a thermistor-tipped arterial catheter, usually placed in the femoral artery. In certain clinical situations, CVC devices have to be placed in the inferior vena cava. However, little is known about the influence of different CVC positions (i.e. ipsi- vs. contra-lateral to the arterial catheter) on the accuracy of the TPTD measurement results. In this prospective observational study surgical intensive care unit patients who had been inserted with CVCs either into the superior (CVCVCS) or the inferior vena cava (CVCinf) in addition to an arterial PiCCO(®)-catheter, were enrolled. Patients were then divided into two groups: Group I was provided with a CVC in the contralateral (CVCcontra) and Group II in the ipsilateral (CVCipsi) inferior vena cava. Thermodilution via injection of ice-cold saline was then performed via CVCsup and CVCinf. Bland-Altman analysis for cardiac index (CI), extra-vascular lung water index (EVLWI) and global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) were employed. Additional correction formulas for femorally assed parameters were determined. In a total of 28 patients, bias (limits of agreement) for measurements of CI in CVCcontra was found to be +0.2 (-0.4; +0.9) and +0.3 (-0.4; +1.0) L/min/m(2) in CVCipsi. GEDVI showed a bias of +274.8 (-47.3; +596.9) mL/m(2) in CVCcontra and +274.7 (-100.7; +650.1) mL/m(2) in CVCipsi. The mean EVLWI were 9.4 ± 4.3 mL/kg for EVLWIVCS and 10.7 ± 5.2 mL/kg for EVLWIinf. The LoA yielded at -3.4 and +6.1 mL/kg with a bias of +1.3 mL/kg. Percentage errors revealed clinically acceptable limits for CI and GEDVI, but not for EVLWI. Using TPTD via an infracardial central vein, measurements of CI showed high accuracy and precision while GEDVI measurements were precise with a lower accuracy, irrespective of the position of the infracardial CVC.

摘要

血流动力学测量通常通过基于经肺热稀释法(TPTD)的脉波指示剂连续心输出量监测仪(PiCCO®)系统进行。这需要一根中心静脉(CVC)导管和一根带热敏电阻的动脉导管,通常放置在股动脉中。在某些临床情况下,CVC装置必须放置在下腔静脉中。然而,关于不同CVC位置(即与动脉导管同侧或对侧)对TPTD测量结果准确性的影响,人们了解甚少。在这项前瞻性观察研究中,纳入了除动脉PiCCO®导管外还插入了上腔静脉(CVCVCS)或下腔静脉(CVCinf)的中心静脉导管的外科重症监护病房患者。然后将患者分为两组:第一组在对侧下腔静脉放置CVC(CVCcontra),第二组在同侧下腔静脉放置CVC(CVCipsi)。然后通过CVCsup和CVCinf注射冰冷盐水进行热稀释。采用布兰德-奥特曼分析评估心脏指数(CI)、血管外肺水指数(EVLWI)和全心舒张末期容积指数(GEDVI)。确定了用于股动脉测量参数的附加校正公式。在总共28例患者中,发现CVCcontra组测量CI的偏差(一致性界限)为+0.2(-0.4;+0.9)L/min/m²,CVCipsi组为+0.3(-0.4;+1.0)L/min/m²。GEDVI在CVCcontra组的偏差为+274.8(-47.3;+596.9)mL/m²,在CVCipsi组为+274.7(-100.7;+650.1)mL/m²。EVLWI在CVCVCS组的平均水平为9.4±4.3 mL/kg,在CVCinf组为10.7±5.2 mL/kg。一致性界限为-3.4和+6.1 mL/kg,偏差为+1.3 mL/kg。百分比误差显示CI和GEDVI在临床上可接受,但EVLWI不可接受。通过心内中心静脉使用TPTD时,无论心内CVC的位置如何,CI测量均显示出高准确性和精密度,而GEDVI测量精密度高但准确性较低。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验