Beitz Analena, Berbara Helena, Mair Sebastian, Henschel Benedikt, Lahmer Tobias, Rasch Sebastian, Schmid Roland, Huber Wolfgang
II. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Ismaninger Street 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
J Clin Monit Comput. 2017 Jun;31(3):599-605. doi: 10.1007/s10877-016-9880-2. Epub 2016 Apr 21.
Global ejection fraction (GEF) and cardiac function index (CFI) are transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD)-derived indices of the systolic function. Their validity relies on an accurate determination of the global end-diastolic volume (GEDV). Due to an overestimation of GEDV using a femoral central venous catheter (CVC) a correction formula for indexed GEDV (GEDVI) has been implemented in the latest PiCCO™-algorithm. However, a recent study demonstrated that correction for femoral CVC does not pertain to pulmonary vascular permeability index PVPI, which is calculated of extravascular lung water EVLW and GEDV. Therefore, it was the aim of our study to evaluate, if GEF and CFI are corrected for femoral CVC. In ten adult ICU-patients with PiCCO™-monitoring, ten triplicate TPTDs were performed within 30 h. 95 complete data sets were analyzed, if a GEDV corrected for CVC site was applied to derive CFI and GEF. Therefore, we compared displayed values CFI and GEF to CFI and GEF, which were calculated from displayed GEDV, cardiac output and stroke volume. GEDV derived from division of GEDVI by predicted body surface area did not substantially differ from GEDV (1448 ± 414 ml vs. 1447 ± 416 ml), which suggests a correction of GEDV for CVC site. However, CFI was significantly lower than CFI (3.8 ± 1.6/min vs. 5.1 ± 1. 8/min: p < 0.001), suggesting that CFI is based on an uncorrected GEDV. By contrast, GEF (23.1 ± 8.7 %) was not substantially different from GEF (22.4 ± 8.6 %). Although GEDV and GEF are corrected for femoral CVC site, this does not apply to CFI. However, all indices derived from GEDV should be calculated consistently.
全球射血分数(GEF)和心功能指数(CFI)是通过经肺热稀释法(TPTD)得出的收缩功能指标。它们的有效性依赖于对全心舒张末期容积(GEDV)的准确测定。由于使用股静脉中心静脉导管(CVC)会高估GEDV,最新的PiCCO™算法中已采用了针对指数化GEDV(GEDVI)的校正公式。然而,最近一项研究表明,股静脉CVC校正并不适用于肺血管通透性指数PVPI,该指数由血管外肺水(EVLW)和GEDV计算得出。因此,我们研究的目的是评估GEF和CFI是否针对股静脉CVC进行了校正。在10例接受PiCCO™监测的成年ICU患者中,在30小时内进行了10次一式三份的TPTD。如果应用针对CVC部位校正后的GEDV来推导CFI和GEF,则分析95个完整数据集。因此,我们将显示的CFI和GEF值与根据显示的GEDV、心输出量和每搏输出量计算得出的CFI和GEF进行了比较。通过将GEDVI除以预测体表面积得出的GEDV与GEDV(1448±414ml对1447±416ml)无显著差异,这表明对CVC部位的GEDV进行了校正。然而,CFI显著低于CFI(3.8±1.6/分钟对5.1±1.8/分钟:p <0.001),这表明CFI基于未校正的GEDV。相比之下,GEF(23.1±8.7%)与GEF(22.4±8.6%)无显著差异。尽管GEDV和GEF针对股静脉CVC部位进行了校正,但这不适用于CFI。然而,所有从GEDV得出的指标都应一致计算。