Suppr超能文献

一种计算机算法确定平均体循环充盈压的临床验证。

Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure.

机构信息

Department of Intensive Care, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Department of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Clin Monit Comput. 2022 Feb;36(1):191-198. doi: 10.1007/s10877-020-00636-2. Epub 2021 Mar 31.

Abstract

Mean systemic filling pressure (Pms) is a promising parameter in determining intravascular fluid status. Pms derived from venous return curves during inspiratory holds with incremental airway pressures (Pms-Insp) estimates Pms reliably but is labor-intensive. A computerized algorithm to calculate Pms (Pmsa) at the bedside has been proposed. In previous studies Pmsa and Pms-Insp correlated well but with considerable bias. This observational study was performed to validate Pmsa with Pms-Insp in cardiac surgery patients. Cardiac output, right atrial pressure and mean arterial pressure were prospectively recorded to calculate Pmsa using a bedside monitor. Pms-Insp was calculated offline after performing inspiratory holds. Intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC) and assessment of agreement were used to compare Pmsa with Pms-Insp. Bias, coefficient of variance (COV), precision and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated. Proportional bias was assessed with linear regression. A high degree of inter-method reliability was found between Pmsa and Pms-Insp (ICC 0.89; 95%CI 0.72-0.96, p = 0.01) in 18 patients. Pmsa and Pms-Insp differed not significantly (11.9 mmHg, IQR 9.8-13.4 vs. 12.7 mmHg, IQR 10.5-14.4, p = 0.38). Bias was -0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg (p = 0.277). COV was 4% with LOA -4.22 - 3.22 mmHg without proportional bias. Conversion coefficient Pmsa ➔ Pms-Insp was 0.94. This assessment of agreement demonstrates that the measures Pms-Insp and the computerized Pmsa-algorithm are interchangeable (bias -0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg with conversion coefficient 0.94). The choice of Pmsa is straightforward, it is non-interventional and available continuously at the bedside in contrast to Pms-Insp which is interventional and calculated off-line. Further studies should be performed to determine the place of Pmsa in the circulatory management of critically ill patients. ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ; TRN NCT04202432, release date 16-12-2019; retrospectively registered).Clinical Trial Registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov , TRN: NCT04202432, initial release date 16-12-2019 (retrospectively registered).

摘要

中心静脉充盈压(Pms)是评估血管内液体状态的一个有前途的参数。通过在递增气道压力下进行吸气保持时从静脉回流曲线中得出的 Pms(Pms-Insp)可以可靠地估计 Pms,但需要大量的劳力。已经提出了一种在床边计算 Pms(Pmsa)的计算机算法。在之前的研究中,Pmsa 和 Pms-Insp 相关性良好,但存在较大的偏差。本观察性研究旨在验证心脏手术患者中 Pmsa 与 Pms-Insp 的相关性。前瞻性记录心输出量、右心房压和平均动脉压,使用床边监测仪计算 Pmsa。在进行吸气保持后,离线计算 Pms-Insp。使用组内相关系数(ICC)和一致性评估来比较 Pmsa 与 Pms-Insp。计算偏倚、变异系数(COV)、精度和一致性界限(LOA)。使用线性回归评估比例偏差。在 18 名患者中,发现 Pmsa 和 Pms-Insp 之间具有高度的方法间可靠性(ICC 0.89;95%CI 0.72-0.96,p=0.01)。Pmsa 和 Pms-Insp 差异不显著(11.9mmHg,IQR 9.8-13.4 与 12.7mmHg,IQR 10.5-14.4,p=0.38)。偏倚为-0.502±1.90mmHg(p=0.277)。COV 为 4%,一致性界限为-4.22-3.22mmHg,无比例偏差。Pmsa 的转换系数为 0.94。这种一致性评估表明,Pms-Insp 和计算机化的 Pmsa 算法是可互换的(偏倚-0.502±1.90mmHg,转换系数为 0.94)。与需要介入且离线计算的 Pms-Insp 相比,Pmsa 的选择简单,是非介入性的,并且可以在床边连续提供。应进一步开展研究,以确定 Pmsa 在危重症患者循环管理中的地位。(www.clinicaltrials.gov;TRN NCT04202432,发布日期 2019 年 12 月 16 日;回溯注册)。临床试验注册 www.ClinicalTrials.gov,TRN:NCT04202432,初始发布日期 2019 年 12 月 16 日(回溯注册)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bb9d/8894152/4a1450c85076/10877_2020_636_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验