Urbano Javier, López Jorge, González Rafael, Fernández Sarah N, Solana María José, Toledo Blanca, Carrillo Ángel, López-Herce Jesús
Pediatric Intensive Care Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Instituto de investigación sanitaria del hospital Gregorio Marañón (IiSGM), Madrid, Spain.
Intensive Care Med Exp. 2016 Dec;4(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s40635-016-0087-0. Epub 2016 Jun 3.
The pressure-recording analytical method is a new semi-invasive method for cardiac output measurement (PRAM). There are no studies comparing this technique with femoral artery thermodilution (FATD) in an infant animal model.
A prospective study was performed using 25 immature Maryland pigs weighing 9.5 kg. Fifty-eight simultaneous measurements of cardiac index (CI) were made by FATD and PRAM at baseline and after return of spontaneous circulation. Differences, correlation, and concordance between both methods were analyzed. The ability of PRAM to track changes in CI was explored with a polar plot.
Mean CI measurements were 4.5 L/min/m(2) (95 % CI, 4.2-4.8 L/min/m(2); coefficient of variation, 27 %) by FATD and 4.0 L/min/m(2) (95 % CI, 3.6-4.3 L/min/m(2); coefficient for variation, 37 %) by PRAM (difference, 0.5 L/min/m(2); 95 % CI for the difference, 0.1-1.0 L/min/m(2); p = 0.003; n = 58). No correlation between both methods was observed (r = 0.170, p = 0.20). Limits of agreement were -2.9 to 4.0 L/min/m(2) (-69.9 to 84.9 %). Percentage error was 80.6 %. Only 26.1 % of data points lied within an absolute deviation of ±30° from the polar axis.
No correlation nor concordance between both methods was observed. Limits of agreement and percentage of error were high and clinically not acceptable. No concurrence between both methods in CI changes was observed. PRAM is not a useful method for measurement of the CI in this pediatric model of cardiac arrest.
压力记录分析法是一种用于心输出量测量的新型半侵入性方法(PRAM)。尚无研究在幼龄动物模型中将该技术与股动脉热稀释法(FATD)进行比较。
对25只体重9.5千克的未成熟马里兰猪进行前瞻性研究。在基线期和自主循环恢复后,通过FATD和PRAM同步测量58次心指数(CI)。分析两种方法之间的差异、相关性和一致性。用极坐标图探讨PRAM追踪CI变化的能力。
FATD测得的平均CI为4.5升/分钟/平方米(95%置信区间,4.2 - 4.8升/分钟/平方米;变异系数,27%),PRAM测得的平均CI为4.0升/分钟/平方米(95%置信区间,3.6 - 4.3升/分钟/平方米;变异系数,37%)(差异为0.5升/分钟/平方米;差异的95%置信区间,0.1 - 1.0升/分钟/平方米;p = 0.003;n = 58)。未观察到两种方法之间存在相关性(r = 0.170,p = 0.20)。一致性界限为-2.9至4.0升/分钟/平方米(-69.9至84.9%)。百分比误差为80.6%。只有26.1%的数据点位于距极轴绝对偏差±30°范围内。
未观察到两种方法之间存在相关性或一致性。一致性界限和误差百分比很高,临床不可接受。未观察到两种方法在CI变化方面的一致性。在这种小儿心脏骤停模型中,PRAM不是测量CI的有用方法。