Elwan Mohammed H, Hue Jeremy, Green Samira J, Eltahan Salah M, Sims Mark R, Coats Timothy J
Department of Emergency Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Emergency Medicine Academic Group, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Emerg Med Australas. 2017 Aug;29(4):391-393. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.12765. Epub 2017 Mar 20.
There are a number of cardiac output (CO) monitors that could potentially be used in the ED. Two of the most promising methods, thoracic electrical bioimpedance and suprasternal Doppler, have not been directly compared. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of CO monitoring using suprasternal Doppler and bioimpedance in emergency care and compare haemodynamic data obtained from both monitors.
Haemodynamic measurements were made on the same group of patients using bioimpedance (Niccomo, Medis, Germany) and suprasternal Doppler (USCOM, Sydney, Australia).
Usable CO data were obtained in 97% of patients by suprasternal Doppler and 87% by bioimpedance. The median CO obtained by Doppler was 3.4 L/min lower than bioimpedance. The stroke volume median was lower by 51 mL in Doppler.
These two methods of non-invasive cardiac monitoring are not interchangeable. The results suggest that the choice of non-invasive cardiac monitor is important, but the grounds on which to make this choice are not currently clear.
有多种心输出量（CO）监测仪可潜在地用于急诊科。两种最具前景的方法，即胸部电阻抗法和胸骨上多普勒法，尚未进行直接比较。本研究的目的是探讨在急诊护理中使用胸骨上多普勒法和电阻抗法进行心输出量监测的可行性，并比较从这两种监测仪获得的血流动力学数据。
对同一组患者使用电阻抗法（德国美迪思公司的Niccomo）和胸骨上多普勒法（澳大利亚悉尼的USCOM）进行血流动力学测量。
胸骨上多普勒法在97%的患者中获得了可用的心输出量数据，电阻抗法为87%。通过多普勒法获得的心输出量中位数比电阻抗法低3.4升/分钟。多普勒法测得的每搏输出量中位数低51毫升。
这两种非侵入性心脏监测方法不可互换。结果表明，选择非侵入性心脏监测仪很重要，但目前尚不清楚做出这种选择的依据。
