OBJECTIVE: To compare the lithium-thermal double indicator dilution (Li-thermal), indocyanine green-thermal double indicator dilution (ICG-thermal), single thermal indicator dilution (single-thermal) and gravimetric techniques of extravascular lung water volume (EVLW) measurement in porcine models of acute lung injury. DESIGN: Two animal models designed to invoke a systemic inflammatory response. SETTING: Laboratory study. SUBJECTS: A total of 12 immature Deutsches Landschwein pigs. INTERVENTIONS: Extravascular lung water volume was measured at four time points using Li-thermal, ICG-thermal and single-thermal techniques. Measurements were performed using existing technology according to manufacturer's instructions. Post-mortem gravimetric EVLW measurements were performed by measuring wet and dry mass of lung tissue. Measurements were compared using the Bland-Altman method. Data are presented as mean (SD). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were collected in 12 animals and comparison between all 4 techniques was possible in 10 animals. EVLW measured by gravimetry was 9.2 (+/-3.0)ml kg(-1). When compared to gravimetry, both Li-thermal and ICG-thermal techniques showed minimal bias but wide limits of agreement (LOA) [Li-thermal: bias -1.8 ml kg(-1) (LOA +/- 13.1); ICG-thermal bias -1.0 ml kg(-1) (LOA +/- 6.6)]. Comparison between the single-thermal and gravimetric methods identified both considerable bias and wide LOA [+8.5 ml kg(-1) (LOA +/- 14.5)]. CONCLUSION: Clinically significant differences between EVLW measurements obtained with the gravimetric method and three in vivo indicator dilution techniques were identified. While none of the techniques could be considered ideal, the ICG-thermal method appeared more reliable than either the Li-thermal or single thermal techniques. Further research is required to determine whether the accuracy of the prototype Li-thermal technique can be improved.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the lithium-thermal double indicator dilution (Li-thermal), indocyanine green-thermal double indicator dilution (ICG-thermal), single thermal indicator dilution (single-thermal) and gravimetric techniques of extravascular lung water volume (EVLW) measurement in porcine models of acute lung injury. DESIGN: Two animal models designed to invoke a systemic inflammatory response. SETTING: Laboratory study. SUBJECTS: A total of 12 immature Deutsches Landschwein pigs. INTERVENTIONS: Extravascular lung water volume was measured at four time points using Li-thermal, ICG-thermal and single-thermal techniques. Measurements were performed using existing technology according to manufacturer's instructions. Post-mortem gravimetric EVLW measurements were performed by measuring wet and dry mass of lung tissue. Measurements were compared using the Bland-Altman method. Data are presented as mean (SD). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were collected in 12 animals and comparison between all 4 techniques was possible in 10 animals. EVLW measured by gravimetry was 9.2 (+/-3.0)ml kg(-1). When compared to gravimetry, both Li-thermal and ICG-thermal techniques showed minimal bias but wide limits of agreement (LOA) [Li-thermal: bias -1.8 ml kg(-1) (LOA +/- 13.1); ICG-thermal bias -1.0 ml kg(-1) (LOA +/- 6.6)]. Comparison between the single-thermal and gravimetric methods identified both considerable bias and wide LOA [+8.5 ml kg(-1) (LOA +/- 14.5)]. CONCLUSION: Clinically significant differences between EVLW measurements obtained with the gravimetric method and three in vivo indicator dilution techniques were identified. While none of the techniques could be considered ideal, the ICG-thermal method appeared more reliable than either the Li-thermal or single thermal techniques. Further research is required to determine whether the accuracy of the prototype Li-thermal technique can be improved.
Authors: P Rossi; A Oldner; M Wanecek; L G Leksell; A Rudehill; D Konrad; E Weitzberg Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2003-02-08 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Patrik Rossi; Michael Wanecek; Anders Rudehill; David Konrad; Eddie Weitzberg; Anders Oldner Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Rita Katzenelson; Azriel Perel; Haiim Berkenstadt; Sergei Preisman; Samuel Kogan; Leonid Sternik; Eran Segal Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Enrique Fernández-Mondéjar; José Castaño-Pérez; Ricardo Rivera-Fernández; Manuel Colmenero-Ruiz; Francisco Manzano; JoséMiguel Pérez-Villares; Rafael de la Chica Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Mikhail Y Kirov; Vsevolod V Kuzkov; Vladimir N Kuklin; Kristine Waerhaug; Lars J Bjertnaes Journal: Crit Care Date: 2004-10-19 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Benjamin Maddison; Christopher Wolff; George Findlay; Peter Radermacher; Charles Hinds; Rupert M Pearse Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-07-06 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: S L Vrancken; A Nusmeier; J C Hopman; K D Liem; J G van der Hoeven; J Lemson; A F van Heijst; W P de Boode Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 2.502