Literature DB >> 17896183

Effects of vasodilation on cardiac output measured by PulseCO.

Koichi Yamashita1, Tomoki Nishiyama, Takeshi Yokoyama, Hidehiro Abe, Masanobu Manabe.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The instability of cardiac output (CO) measured by PulseCO (LiDCO Ltd.) during cardiac surgery has been reported. In the present study, we investigated the effects of vasodilation by prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) on the relation between cardiac output measured by PulseCO and that by thermodilution.
METHODS: Twenty patients who underwent off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) were enrolled in this study. After premedication with oral diazepam 10 mg, anesthesia was induced with midazolam, fentanyl and vecuronium. CO was measured after anesthesia induction, at PGE1 0.01, 0.02 and 0.04 microg/(kg min) and at 15 min after the stop of the infusion.
RESULTS: Systemic vascular resistances (SVRs) by PGE1 at 0.02 and 0.04 microg/(kg min) were significantly lower than the control value. The correlation coefficient (R2) between the two techniques at each point, percentage error and limits of agreement (bias +/-2SD of bias) were 0.78, 3, 0.05 +/- 0.17 at 0.01 microg/(kg min), 0.20, 10, -0.18 +/- 0.12 at 0.02 microg/(kg min), 0.46, 28, -0.50 +/- 0.24 at 0.04 microg/(kg min) and 0.97, 1, 0.02 +/- 0.27 L/min at 15 min after stop of infusion, respectively.
CONCLUSION: PulseCO might underestimate CO compared to that by bolus thermodilution method when simply decreasing the SVR by infusion of PGE1. Therefore, PulseCO might be unsuitable in cardiac surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17896183     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-007-9093-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  15 in total

1.  Continuous cardiac output by pulse contour analysis?

Authors:  J J van Lieshout; K H Wesseling
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 9.166

2.  A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques.

Authors:  L A Critchley; J A Critchley
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Cardiac output by PulseCO is not interchangeable with thermodilution in patients undergoing OPCAB.

Authors:  Koichi Yamashita; Tomoki Nishiyama; Takeshi Yokoyama; Hidehiro Abe; Masanobu Manabe
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.063

4.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Effect of intravenous prostaglandin E1 on pial vessel diameters and intracranial pressure in rabbits.

Authors:  M Miyabe; T Fukuda; S Saito; K Tajima; H Toyooka
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 2.105

6.  Vasodilator action of prostaglandin E1 on microcirculation of rat cremaster muscle.

Authors:  L E Chen; A V Seaber; J R Urbaniak
Journal:  Microsurgery       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.425

7.  A comparison of cardiac output derived from the arterial pressure wave against thermodilution in cardiac surgery patients.

Authors:  J R Jansen; J J Schreuder; J P Mulier; N T Smith; J J Settels; K H Wesseling
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 9.166

8.  Lithium dilution cardiac output measurement: a comparison with thermodilution.

Authors:  R Linton; D Band; T O'Brien; M Jonas; R Leach
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Antihypertensive activity and metabolic rate of prostaglandin E1 in surgical patients under general anesthesia.

Authors:  F Goto; E Otani; T Fujita
Journal:  Prostaglandins Leukot Med       Date:  1985-06

10.  The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT Investigators.

Authors:  A F Connors; T Speroff; N V Dawson; C Thomas; F E Harrell; D Wagner; N Desbiens; L Goldman; A W Wu; R M Califf; W J Fulkerson; H Vidaillet; S Broste; P Bellamy; J Lynn; W A Knaus
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-09-18       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Minimally invasive or noninvasive cardiac output measurement: an update.

Authors:  Lisa Sangkum; Geoffrey L Liu; Ling Yu; Hong Yan; Alan D Kaye; Henry Liu
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 2.078

2.  Arterial pressure-based cardiac output monitoring: a multicenter validation of the third-generation software in septic patients.

Authors:  Daniel De Backer; Gernot Marx; Andrew Tan; Christopher Junker; Marc Van Nuffelen; Lars Hüter; Willy Ching; Frédéric Michard; Jean-Louis Vincent
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2010-12-10       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Cardiac output measurement by arterial pressure waveform analysis during optimization of biventricular pacing after cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Justin H Booth; T Alexander Quinn; Marc E Richmond; Santos E Cabreriza; Alan D Weinberg; Taylor Johnston; Henry M Spotnitz
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2009 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.872

4.  Recent advance in patient monitoring.

Authors:  Tomoki Nishiyama
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2010-09-20

5.  Pulse pressure analysis: to make a long story short.

Authors:  Maurizio Cecconi; Andrew Rhodes
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2010-07-12       Impact factor: 9.097

6.  Cardiac output assessed by invasive and minimally invasive techniques.

Authors:  Allison J Lee; Jennifer Hochman Cohn; J Sudharma Ranasinghe
Journal:  Anesthesiol Res Pract       Date:  2011-07-06

7.  Uncalibrated pulse power analysis fails to reliably measure cardiac output in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery.

Authors:  Ole Broch; Jochen Renner; Jan Höcker; Matthias Gruenewald; Patrick Meybohm; Jan Schöttler; Markus Steinfath; Berthold Bein
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2011-02-28       Impact factor: 9.097

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.