STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of the global end-diastolic volume (GEDV) evaluated by transpulmonary thermodilution as an indicator of cardiac preload. DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. SETTING: Medical ICU of a university hospital (20 beds). PATIENTS: Thirty-six patients with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Volume loading and dobutamine infusion. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Hemodynamic parameters were evaluated in triplicate by the transpulmonary thermodilution technique: (1) before and after 66 fluid challenges in 27 patients, and (2) before and after 28 increases in dobutamine infusion rate in 9 patients. Volume loading induced a significant (p < 0.001) increase in central venous pressure (CVP) from 10 +/- 4 to 13 +/- 4 mm Hg, in GEDV index from 711 +/- 164 to 769 +/- 144 mL/m(2), in stroke volume index (SVI) from 36 +/- 12 to 42 +/- 12 mL/m(2), and in cardiac index (CI) from 3.4 +/- 1.1 to 3.9 +/- 1.2 L/min/m(2) (mean +/- SD). Changes in GEDV index were correlated (r = 0.72, p < 0.001) with changes in SVI, while changes in CVP were not. The increase in SVI was > 15% in 32 of 66 instances (positive response). The preinfusion GEDV index was lower (637 +/- 134 mL/m(2) vs 781 +/- 161 mL/m(2), p < 0.001) in the cases of positive response, and was negatively correlated with the percentage increase in GEDV index (r = - 0.65, p < 0.001) and in SVI (r = - 0.5, p < 0.001). Dobutamine infusion induced an increase in SVI (32 +/- 11 mL/m(2) vs 35 +/- 12 mL/m(2), p < 0.05) and in CI (2.8 +/- 0.6 L/min/m(2) vs 3.2 +/- 0.6 L/min/m(2), p < 0.001) but no significant change in CVP (13 +/- 3 mm Hg vs 13 +/- 3 mm Hg) and in GEDV index (823 +/- 221 mL/m(2) vs 817 +/- 202 mL/m(2)). CONCLUSION: In patients with septic shock, our findings demonstrate that, in contrast to CVP, the transpulmonary thermodilution GEDV index behaves as an indicator of cardiac preload.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of the global end-diastolic volume (GEDV) evaluated by transpulmonary thermodilution as an indicator of cardiac preload. DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. SETTING: Medical ICU of a university hospital (20 beds). PATIENTS: Thirty-six patients with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Volume loading and dobutamine infusion. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Hemodynamic parameters were evaluated in triplicate by the transpulmonary thermodilution technique: (1) before and after 66 fluid challenges in 27 patients, and (2) before and after 28 increases in dobutamine infusion rate in 9 patients. Volume loading induced a significant (p < 0.001) increase in central venous pressure (CVP) from 10 +/- 4 to 13 +/- 4 mm Hg, in GEDV index from 711 +/- 164 to 769 +/- 144 mL/m(2), in stroke volume index (SVI) from 36 +/- 12 to 42 +/- 12 mL/m(2), and in cardiac index (CI) from 3.4 +/- 1.1 to 3.9 +/- 1.2 L/min/m(2) (mean +/- SD). Changes in GEDV index were correlated (r = 0.72, p < 0.001) with changes in SVI, while changes in CVP were not. The increase in SVI was > 15% in 32 of 66 instances (positive response). The preinfusion GEDV index was lower (637 +/- 134 mL/m(2) vs 781 +/- 161 mL/m(2), p < 0.001) in the cases of positive response, and was negatively correlated with the percentage increase in GEDV index (r = - 0.65, p < 0.001) and in SVI (r = - 0.5, p < 0.001). Dobutamine infusion induced an increase in SVI (32 +/- 11 mL/m(2) vs 35 +/- 12 mL/m(2), p < 0.05) and in CI (2.8 +/- 0.6 L/min/m(2) vs 3.2 +/- 0.6 L/min/m(2), p < 0.001) but no significant change in CVP (13 +/- 3 mm Hg vs 13 +/- 3 mm Hg) and in GEDV index (823 +/- 221 mL/m(2) vs 817 +/- 202 mL/m(2)). CONCLUSION: In patients with septic shock, our findings demonstrate that, in contrast to CVP, the transpulmonary thermodilution GEDV index behaves as an indicator of cardiac preload.
Authors: Andrea Székely; Tamás Breuer; Erzsébet Sápi; Edgár Székely; András Szatmári; Miklós Tóth; Balázs Hauser; János Gál Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Azriel Perel; Bernd Saugel; Jean-Louis Teboul; Manu L N G Malbrain; Francisco Javier Belda; Enrique Fernández-Mondéjar; Mikhail Kirov; Julia Wendon; Roger Lussmann; Marco Maggiorini Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Charalampos Pierrakos; Dimitrios Velissaris; Sabino Scolletta; Sarah Heenen; Daniel De Backer; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Matthias S G Goepfert; Daniel A Reuter; Derya Akyol; Peter Lamm; Erich Kilger; Alwin E Goetz Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-11-21 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Inneke E De Laet; Mariska Ravyts; Wesley Vidts; Jody Valk; Jan J De Waele; Manu L N G Malbrain Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2008-06-17 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Tobias Lahmer; Sebastian Rasch; Christopher Schnappauf; Roland M Schmid; Wolfgang Huber Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 2.370