Thomas Manu, Kumar Lakshmi, Jain Priyanka, Sarma Chitra, Paul Shabala, Surendran Sudhindran
Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Department of Clinical Research, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, Delhi, India.
Indian J Anaesth. 2021 Apr;65(4):302-308. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_495_20. Epub 2021 Apr 15.
Accurate blood pressure measurements are the mainstay for the efficient management of abrupt cardiovascular changes during reperfusion in liver transplant. We sought to compare the femoral and radial pressures during reperfusion and at baseline, 1 h in dissection: portosystemic shunt, reperfusion, at bile duct anastomosis.
A retrospective study was performed amongst 102 adult patients who underwent R lobe living donor liver transplantation. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and systolic arterial pressure (SAP) at 10 s intervals at reperfusion and at five fixed time points were compared by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and limits of agreement by Bland-Altman statistics.
MAP by both routes had a good correlation at all time points during reperfusion (overall ICC: 0.946 [0.938, 0.949]) in comparison with SAP (overall ICC: 0.650 [0.6128, 0.684]). At the lowest reperfusion pressure (reperfusion point), MAP showed high levels of agreements (ICC: 0.833 [0.761, 0.885]), whereas SAP showed only a poor level of agreement (ICC 0.343 [0.153, 0.508]). The Bland-Altman analysis for MAP showed a bias of 7.18 (5.94) mmHg and limits of agreement of - 4.5 mmHg to + 18.8 mmHg and for SAP a bias of 25.2 (22.04) mmHg and limits of agreement of - 18.0 mmHg to + 68.4 mmHg at the reperfusion point. The incidence of post-reperfusion syndrome (PRS) was 52.94% by femoral and 57.84% by radial routes.
Radial MAP correlated well with femoral MAP during reperfusion and at predefined time points and can be used interchangeably for intraoperative monitoring. A high incidence of PRS was noted by our technique of measurement.
准确测量血压是肝移植再灌注期间有效管理突发心血管变化的关键。我们试图比较再灌注期间以及基线、解剖1小时(门静脉分流、再灌注、胆管吻合时)的股动脉压和桡动脉压。
对102例接受右叶活体供肝移植的成年患者进行回顾性研究。通过组内相关系数(ICC)以及Bland - Altman统计分析的一致性界限,比较再灌注时以及五个固定时间点每隔10秒的平均动脉压(MAP)和收缩压(SAP)。
与SAP(总体ICC:0.650 [0.6128, 0.684])相比,再灌注期间两条途径的MAP在所有时间点均具有良好的相关性(总体ICC:0.946 [0.938, 0.949])。在最低再灌注压力(再灌注点)时,MAP显示出高度一致性(ICC:0.833 [0.761, 0.885]),而SAP仅显示出较差的一致性水平(ICC 0.343 [0.153, 0.508])。MAP的Bland - Altman分析显示,在再灌注点时偏差为7.18(5.94)mmHg,一致性界限为 - 4.5 mmHg至 + 18.8 mmHg;对于SAP,偏差为25.2(22.04)mmHg,一致性界限为 - 18.0 mmHg至 + 68.4 mmHg。股动脉途径的再灌注后综合征(PRS)发生率为52.94%,桡动脉途径为57.84%。
再灌注期间以及预定时间点,桡动脉MAP与股动脉MAP相关性良好,可在术中监测时交替使用。我们的测量技术显示PRS发生率较高。