Department of Surgery, (Royal Melbourne Hospital), University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Victoria, Australia; Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Monash Medical Centre, Victoria, Australia.
Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Monash Medical Centre, Victoria, Australia.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020 Jan;34(1):77-86. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2019.06.007. Epub 2019 Jun 13.
To compare agreement and variability of cardiac output measurement of 2-dimensional (2D) and 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) with thermodilution before and after bypass.
Prospective observational study.
Two tertiary hospitals.
Cardiac output (CO) was measured simultaneously with thermodilution and TEE by multiplying either the left ventricular outflow tract area (LVOTA) or aortic valve area (AVA), the velocity-time integral (VTI) of flow at the same site, and heart rate. The LVOTA was calculated using diameter for 2D TEE. Planimetry was used for 3D TEE. The AVA was measured using planimetry.
The study comprised 82 adult patients undergoing coronary or valve surgery.
One hundred fifty-four complete sets of measurements were obtained (82 prebypass and 72 postbypass). All TEE methods had acceptable correlation and absence of proportional or fixed bias except for the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) VTI modal trace method, which had poor correlation and proportional but not fixed bias (regression coefficient [95% confidence interval], bias [percentage of mean CO]): 2D LVOT VTI modal trace 0.67 (0.54-0.80), -36.4%; 2D LVOT VTI outer edge trace 0.96 (0.80-1.12), -15.3%; 2D AVA planimetry 0.96 (0.75-1.18), +4.9%; 3D LVOT area planimetry 1.18 (0.96-1.41), +0.8%; 3D AVA planimetry 1.20 (0.93-1.46), +0.4%. All TEE methods had wide levels of agreement compared with thermodilution (-3.94 to +0.23 L/min, -2.83 to +1.28 L/min, -2.23 to +2.73 L/min, -2.35 to +2.42 L/min, and -2.57 to +2.61 L/min, respectively). Measurement variability was superior for all TEE methods compared with thermodilution before but not after bypass.
Although limits of agreement of CO measurement with 3D TEE and thermodilution are wide, 2D planimetry of the AVA and continuous wave Doppler may be substituted for thermodilution before and after bypass.
比较经食管二维(2D)和三维超声心动图(TEE)与热稀释法在心内直视手术前后心输出量测量的一致性和可变性。
前瞻性观察性研究。
两家三级医院。
通过左心室流出道面积(LVOTA)或主动脉瓣面积(AVA)、同一部位的血流速度时间积分(VTI)和心率相乘,同时用热稀释法和 TEE 测量心输出量(CO)。2D TEE 使用直径计算 LVOTA。3D TEE 使用平面测量法。AVA 采用平面测量法测量。
研究纳入 82 例接受冠状动脉或瓣膜手术的成年患者。
共获得 154 组完整的测量值(术前 82 组,术后 72 组)。所有 TEE 方法均具有良好的相关性,不存在比例或固定偏倚,除左心室流出道(LVOT)VTI 模态迹线法外,该方法相关性较差,呈比例但无固定偏倚(回归系数[95%置信区间],偏差[平均 CO 的百分比]):2D LVOT VTI 模态迹线 0.67(0.54-0.80),-36.4%;2D LVOT VTI 外边缘迹线 0.96(0.80-1.12),-15.3%;2D AVA 平面测量法 0.96(0.75-1.18),+4.9%;3D LVOT 面积平面测量法 1.18(0.96-1.41),+0.8%;3D AVA 平面测量法 1.20(0.93-1.46),+0.4%。与热稀释法相比,所有 TEE 方法的一致性水平均较宽(分别为-3.94 至+0.23 L/min、-2.83 至+1.28 L/min、-2.23 至+2.73 L/min、-2.35 至+2.42 L/min 和-2.57 至+2.61 L/min)。与热稀释法相比,所有 TEE 方法在心内直视手术后的测量变异性均优于热稀释法,但术前并非如此。
尽管 3D TEE 和热稀释法测量 CO 的一致性范围较宽,但二维 AVA 平面测量和连续波多普勒可在体外循环前后替代热稀释法。