Suppr超能文献

一种基于动脉脉搏轮廓的新型心输出量测量装置的验证

Validation of a new arterial pulse contour-based cardiac output device.

作者信息

de Waal Eric E C, Kalkman Cor J, Rex Steffen, Buhre Wolfgang F

机构信息

Division of Perioperative and Emergency Care, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Crit Care Med. 2007 Aug;35(8):1904-9. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000275429.45312.8C.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy and precision of an arterial pulse contour-based continuous cardiac output device (Vigileo). Vigileo cardiac output (VigileoCO) was compared with intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution cardiac output (TPCO) and an established arterial pulse contour-based cardiac output (PCCO).

DESIGN

Prospective clinical study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

Twenty-two patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Defined volume load during surgery and in the postoperative period.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We obtained 184 pairs of VigileoCO and TPCO, 140 pairs of VigileoCO and PCCO, and 140 pairs of PCCO and TPCO. Measurements were performed after induction of anesthesia (T1), after sternotomy (T2), immediately after (T3) and 20 mins after volume challenge with 10 mL.kg hydroxyethyl starch 6% (T4), 15 mins after coronary pulmonary bypass (T5), after retransfusion of autologous blood (T6), after arrival at the intensive care unit (T7), and immediately after (T8) and 20 mins after (T9) a second volume load with 10 mL.kg hydroxyethyl starch 6%. TPCO was used to calibrate PCCO. For pooled data, including uncalibrated PCCO data immediately after weaning from coronary pulmonary bypass (T5), the correlation coefficient of TPCO vs. VigileoCO, PCCO vs. VigileoCO, and TPCO vs. PCCO was 0.75, 0.60, and 0.75 respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of 0.00, -0.01, and 0.02 L.min, the precision (=sd) was 0.87, 1.08, and 0.93 L.min, and the mean error was 33%, 40%, and 35%. When we compared calibrated PCCO values (T2-T4, T6, T7-9), the correlation coefficients of PCCO-VigileoCO and TPCO-PCCO were 0.72 and 0.85, bias was -0.16 and 0.19 L.min, and mean error was 33% and 27%, respectively. Best correlations and the least differences between TPCO and VigileoCO were observed in postbypass closed-chest conditions and in the intensive care unit.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that VigileoCO enables clinically acceptable assessment of cardiac output in postbypass closed-chest conditions and during stable conditions in the intensive care unit.

摘要

目的

评估基于动脉脉搏轮廓的连续心输出量监测设备(Vigileo)的准确性和精确性。将Vigileo心输出量(VigileoCO)与间歇性经肺热稀释法心输出量(TPCO)以及一种已确立的基于动脉脉搏轮廓的心输出量(PCCO)进行比较。

设计

前瞻性临床研究。

地点

大学医院。

患者

22例接受冠状动脉旁路移植术的患者。

干预措施

手术期间及术后规定的容量负荷。

测量与主要结果

我们获取了184对VigileoCO和TPCO、140对VigileoCO和PCCO以及140对PCCO和TPCO。测量在麻醉诱导后(T1)、胸骨切开术后(T2)、用10 mL·kg 6%羟乙基淀粉进行容量负荷后即刻(T3)和20分钟后(T4)、冠状动脉旁路移植术后15分钟(T5)、自体血回输后(T6)、到达重症监护病房后(T7)以及用10 mL·kg 6%羟乙基淀粉进行第二次容量负荷后即刻(T8)和20分钟后(T9)进行。TPCO用于校准PCCO。对于汇总数据,包括冠状动脉旁路移植术后脱机即刻(T5)未校准的PCCO数据,TPCO与VigileoCO、PCCO与VigileoCO以及TPCO与PCCO的相关系数分别为0.75、0.60和0.75。Bland-Altman分析显示偏差分别为0.00、-0.01和0.02 L·min,精确性(=标准差)分别为0.87 L·min、1.08 L·min和0.93 L·min,平均误差分别为33%、40%和35%。当比较校准后的PCCO值(T2 - T4、T6、T7 - 9)时,PCCO - VigileoCO和TPCO - PCCO的相关系数分别为0.72和0.85,偏差分别为-0.16 L·min和0.19 L·min,平均误差分别为33%和27%。在旁路术后关胸状态和重症监护病房的稳定状态下,观察到TPCO与VigileoCO之间的相关性最佳且差异最小。

结论

我们的结果表明,VigileoCO能够在旁路术后关胸状态和重症监护病房的稳定状态下对心输出量进行临床可接受的评估。

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