Wacharasint Petch, Kunakorn Pimsai, Pankongsap Pimporn, Preechanukul Ratanachai
J Med Assoc Thai. 2014 Jan;97 Suppl 1:S55-60.
To evaluate the performance of arterial pressure-based cardiac output (APCO) and pulse wave transit time-based cardiac output (esCCO) monitors in Thai patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.
The authors studied fifty Thai surgical patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) with cardiopulmonary bypass and requiring pulmonary artery catheters and radial artery catheter placement as a standard of clinical care. All patients were measured for APCO using the Vigileo/FloTrac and esCCO using the esCCO monitoring system. The data were compared to thermodilution cardiac output (TDCO) monitoring as a reference method, simultaneously at pre-induction of anesthesia, post-induction, and every 30 minutes thereafter until the completion of the surgery. The bias and precision were assessed using Bland-Altman analysis.
310 pairs of simultaneous measurements of APCO vs. TDCO and 303 pairs of esCCO vs. TDCO were obtained from fifty patients. Both APCO (R = 0.53, p < 0.0001) and esCCO values (R = 0.56, p < 0.0001) were correlated with TDCO values. Either of the changes in APCO (R = 0.63, p < 0.0001) or any changes in esCCO (R = 0.60, p < 0.0001) were correlated with changes in TDCO. For APCO relative to TDCO, the bias, precision, and the limits of agreement were 0.70, +/- 1.63, and -2.5 to 3.9 L/min while of esCCO were 1.20, +/-1.59 and -1.9 to 4.3 L/min, respectively. Comparisons of the bias of APCO and esCCO revealed a level of significance of p < 0.001.
Despite the overestimation of CO measurements, APCO and esCCO calibrated with patient information has shown an acceptable trend as compared to TDCO in Thai patients undergoing CABG with cardiopulmonary bypass. Compared to esCCO, APCO demonstrated no significant differences ofprecision however; a lower mean bias was exhibited.
评估基于动脉压的心输出量(APCO)监测仪和基于脉搏波传播时间的心输出量(esCCO)监测仪在接受体外循环心脏手术的泰国患者中的性能。
作者研究了50例接受冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)并进行体外循环的泰国手术患者,这些患者需要放置肺动脉导管和桡动脉导管作为临床护理标准。所有患者均使用Vigileo/FloTrac测量APCO,并使用esCCO监测系统测量esCCO。将数据与作为参考方法的热稀释心输出量(TDCO)监测进行比较,同时在麻醉诱导前、诱导后以及此后每30分钟进行一次,直至手术结束。使用Bland-Altman分析评估偏差和精密度。
从50例患者中获得了310对APCO与TDCO的同步测量值以及303对esCCO与TDCO的同步测量值。APCO值(R = 0.53,p < 0.0001)和esCCO值(R = 0.56,p < 0.0001)均与TDCO值相关。APCO的任何变化(R = 0.63,p < 0.0001)或esCCO的任何变化(R = 0.60,p < 0.0001)均与TDCO的变化相关。相对于TDCO,APCO的偏差、精密度和一致性界限分别为0.70、±1.63以及-2.5至3.9 L/min,而esCCO的分别为1.20、±1.59以及-1.9至4.3 L/min。APCO和esCCO偏差的比较显示显著性水平为p < 0.001。
尽管心输出量测量值存在高估,但在接受体外循环CABG的泰国患者中,用患者信息校准的APCO和esCCO与TDCO相比显示出可接受的趋势。与esCCO相比,APCO的精密度无显著差异;然而,其平均偏差较低。