van Drumpt A, van Bommel J, Hoeks S, Grüne F, Wolvetang T, Bekkers J, Ter Horst M
Department of Anesthesiology, Erasmus Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Intensive Care Adults, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
BMC Anesthesiol. 2017 Mar 14;17(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s12871-017-0334-2.
A relatively new uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform cardiac output (CO) measurement technique is the Pulsioflex-ProAQT® system. Aim of this study was to validate this system in cardiac surgery patients with a specific focus on the evaluation of a difference in the radial versus the femoral arterial access, the value of the auto-calibration modus and the ability to show fluid-induced changes.
In twenty-five patients scheduled for ascending aorta, aortic arch replacement, or both we measured CO simultaneously by transpulmonary thermodilution (COtd) and by using the ProAQT® system connected to the radial (COpR), as well as the femoral artery catheter (COpF). Hemodynamic data were assessed at predefined time points; from incision until 16 h after ICU admission.
In total 175 (radial) and 179 (femoral) pairs of CO measurement were collected. The accuracy of COpR/COpF was evaluated showing a mean bias of -0.31 L/min (±2.9 L/min) and -0.57 L/min (± 2.8 L/min) with percentage errors of 49 and 46% respectively. Trending ability of the ProAQT® device was evaluated; the four quadrant concordance rates in the radial and femoral artery were 74 and 75% and improved to 77 and 85% after auto-calibration. The mean angular biases in the radial and femoral artery were 6.4° and 6.0° and improved to 5° and 3.3° after auto-calibration. The polar concordance rates in the radial and femoral artery were 65 and 70% and improved to 76 and 84% after auto-calibration. Considering the fluid-induced changes in stroke volume(SV), the coefficient of correlation between the changes in SVtd and SVp was 0.57 (p < 0.01) in the radial artery and 0.60 (p < 0.01) in the femoral artery.
The ProAQT® system can be of additional value if the clinician wants to determine fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgery patients. However, the ProAQT® system provided inaccurate CO measurements compared to transpulmonary thermodilution. The trending ability was poor for COpR but moderate for COpF. Auto-calibration of the system did not improve accuracy of CO measurements nor did it improve the prediction of fluid responsiveness. However, the trending ability was improved by auto-calibration, possibly by correcting a drift over a longer time period.
一种相对较新的未校准动脉压波形心输出量(CO)测量技术是Pulsioflex-ProAQT®系统。本研究的目的是在心脏手术患者中验证该系统,特别关注桡动脉与股动脉入路的差异评估、自动校准模式的价值以及显示液体诱导变化的能力。
在25例计划进行升主动脉、主动脉弓置换或两者手术的患者中,我们通过经肺热稀释法(COtd)以及使用连接到桡动脉(COpR)和股动脉导管(COpF)的ProAQT®系统同时测量心输出量。在预定时间点评估血流动力学数据;从切口至重症监护病房(ICU)入院后16小时。
总共收集了175对(桡动脉)和179对(股动脉)心输出量测量值。评估了COpR/COpF的准确性,平均偏差分别为-0.31L/分钟(±2.9L/分钟)和-0.57L/分钟(±2.8L/分钟),百分比误差分别为49%和46%。评估了ProAQT®设备的趋势分析能力;桡动脉和股动脉的四象限一致性率分别为74%和75%,自动校准后提高到77%和85%。桡动脉和股动脉的平均角度偏差分别为6.4°和6.0°,自动校准后提高到5°和3.3°。桡动脉和股动脉的极坐标一致性率分别为65%和70%,自动校准后提高到76%和84%。考虑到每搏量(SV)的液体诱导变化,桡动脉中SVtd变化与SVp变化之间的相关系数为0.57(p<0.01),股动脉中为0.60(p<0.01)。
如果临床医生想确定心脏手术患者的液体反应性,ProAQT®系统可能具有额外价值。然而,与经肺热稀释法相比,ProAQT®系统提供的心输出量测量不准确。COpR的趋势分析能力较差,而COpF的趋势分析能力中等。系统的自动校准既没有提高心输出量测量的准确性,也没有改善液体反应性的预测。然而,自动校准改善了趋势分析能力,可能是通过校正较长时间段内的漂移实现的。