Suppr超能文献

慢性呼吸困难患者静息和运动诱发心输出量测量中热稀释法与菲克法的比较。

Comparison between thermodilution and Fick methods for resting and exercise-induced cardiac output measurement in patients with chronic dyspnea.

作者信息

Desole Susanna, Obst Anne, Habedank Dirk, Opitz Christian F, Knaack Christine, Hortien Franziska, Heine Alexander, Stubbe Beate, Ewert Ralf

机构信息

Division of Pneumology, Department of Internal Medicine B University Hospital Greifswald Greifswald Germany.

Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine DRK-Hospital Berlin Germany.

出版信息

Pulm Circ. 2022 Jul 1;12(3):e12128. doi: 10.1002/pul2.12128. eCollection 2022 Jul.

Abstract

Studies comparing thermodilution (TD) and the direct Fick method (dFM) for cardiac output (CO) measurement are rare. We compared CO measurements between TD (2-5 cold water injections), the dFM, and indirect Fick method (iFM) at rest and during exercise, and assessed the effect of averaging different numbers of TD measurements during exercise. This retrospective study included 300 patients (52.3% women, mean age 66 ± 11 years) having pulmonary hypertension (76.0%) or unexplained dyspnea. Invasive hemodynamic and gas exchange parameters were measured at rest (supine;  = 300) and during unloaded cycling (semi-supine;  = 275) and 25-W exercise (semi-supine;  = 240). All three methods showed significant differences in CO measurement (ΔCO) at rest ( ≤ 0.001; ΔCO > 1 L/min: 45.0% [iFM vs. dFM], 42.0% [iFM vs. TD], and 45.7% [TD vs. dFM]). ΔCO (TD vs. dFM) was significant during unloaded cycling ( < 0.001; ΔCO > 1 L/min: 56.6%) but not during 25-W exercise ( = 0.137; ΔCO > 1 L/min: 52.8%). ΔCO (TD vs. dFM) during 25-W exercise was significant when using one or two ( ≤ 0.01) but not three ( = 0.06) TD measurements. Mean ΔCO (TD [≥3 measurements] vs. dFM) was -0.43 ± 1.98 and -0.06 ± 2.29 L/min during unloaded and 25-W exercise, respectively. Thus, TD and dFM CO measurements are comparable during 25-W exercise (averaging ≥3 TD measurements), but not during unloaded cycling or at rest. Individual ΔCOs vary substantially and require critical interpretation to avoid CO misclassification.

摘要

比较热稀释法(TD)和直接Fick法(dFM)测量心输出量(CO)的研究很少。我们比较了静息和运动期间TD(2 - 5次冷水注射)、dFM和间接Fick法(iFM)测量的CO,并评估了运动期间平均不同次数TD测量的效果。这项回顾性研究纳入了300例患者(女性占52.3%,平均年龄66±11岁),这些患者患有肺动脉高压(76.0%)或不明原因的呼吸困难。在静息状态(仰卧位;n = 300)、无负荷骑行期间(半仰卧位;n = 275)和25瓦运动期间(半仰卧位;n = 240)测量有创血流动力学和气体交换参数。所有三种方法在静息时测量的CO(ΔCO)均显示出显著差异(P≤0.001;ΔCO>1 L/min:45.0%[iFM与dFM]、42.0%[iFM与TD]和45.7%[TD与dFM])。在无负荷骑行期间,ΔCO(TD与dFM)显著(P<0.001;ΔCO>1 L/min:56.6%),但在25瓦运动期间不显著(P = 0.137;ΔCO>1 L/min:52.8%)。当使用1次或2次TD测量时,25瓦运动期间的ΔCO(TD与dFM)显著(P≤0.01),但使用3次测量时不显著(P = 0.06)。在无负荷和25瓦运动期间,平均ΔCO(TD[≥3次测量]与dFM)分别为 -0.43±1.98和 -0.06±2.29 L/min。因此,在25瓦运动期间(平均≥3次TD测量),TD和dFM测量的CO具有可比性,但在无负荷骑行或静息时不具有可比性。个体的ΔCO差异很大,需要进行批判性解释以避免CO分类错误。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f11e/9425001/cbfc935a9437/PUL2-12-e12128-g002.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