Literature DB >> 1543846

Thermodilution cardiac output: comparison between automated and manual injection of indicator.

D N Thrush1, D Varlotta.   

Abstract

In clinical practice, cardiac output (CO) is usually reported as the average of thermodilution determinations with injection of the thermal indicator performed at end-exhalation. However, an average of multiple determinations with injections equally dispersed throughout the respiratory cycle has been shown to provide the best estimate of mean CO. This study sought to determine the reproducibility of CO determinations obtained with manual injections of indicator solution performed at end-exhalation, compared with those determined by computer-controlled injections equally dispersed throughout the breathing cycle of 27 patients undergoing cardiac operations. Mean CO was calculated by averaging the four determinations obtained with each technique before induction of anesthesia, after induction of anesthesia, after sternotomy, after cardiopulmonary bypass, and after sternal closure. A total of 130 pairs of mean CO estimations were obtained with manual and automated injections. Mean CO values obtained with manual injections were significantly lower than those obtained with the dispersed injection technique (5.0 +/- 1.4 L/min vs 5.3 +/- 1.6 L/min, P = 0.002). The bias between CO values measured with the manual technique was -0.25 +/- 0.47 L/min lower than those obtained with the dispersed technique. The mean relative bias for the group was 7 +/- 18% with 95% confidence intervals of +/- 26%. During mechanical ventilation, the thermodilution technique with manual injection of indicator solution significantly underestimated CO. Variability in the manual injection technique and inappropriate representation of the mean CO by injections timed to occur at end-exhalation contributed to the disparity. These results indicate that the manual technique of determining CO at end-exhalation may not accurately reflect the average CO.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1543846     DOI: 10.1016/1053-0770(91)90038-u

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth        ISSN: 1053-0770            Impact factor:   2.628


  6 in total

1.  Reliability of thermodilution derived cardiac output with different operator characteristics.

Authors:  Scott C McKenzie; Kimble Dunster; Wandy Chan; Martin R Brown; David G Platts; George Javorsky; Chris Anstey; Shaun D Gregory
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 2.  The thermodilution method for the clinical assessment of cardiac output.

Authors:  J R Jansen
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Semi-continuous versus injectate cardiac output measurement in intensive care patients after cardiac surgery.

Authors:  B W Böttiger; M Soder; H Rauch; H Böhrer; J Motsch; H Bauer; E Martin
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 4.  Errors in the measurement of cardiac output by thermodilution.

Authors:  T Nishikawa; S Dohi
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 5.063

5.  Cardiac Output Measurements in Septic Patients: Comparing the Accuracy of USCOM to PiCCO.

Authors:  Sophia Horster; Hans-Joachim Stemmler; Nina Strecker; Florian Brettner; Andreas Hausmann; Jitske Cnossen; Klaus G Parhofer; Thomas Nickel; Sandra Geiger
Journal:  Crit Care Res Pract       Date:  2011-11-29

Review 6.  The contemporary pulmonary artery catheter. Part 2: measurements, limitations, and clinical applications.

Authors:  I T Bootsma; E C Boerma; T W L Scheeren; F de Lange
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 2.502

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.