Literature DB >> 21441548

Performance of cardiac output measurement derived from arterial pressure waveform analysis in patients requiring high-dose vasopressor therapy.

S Metzelder1, M Coburn, M Fries, M Reinges, S Reich, R Rossaint, G Marx, S Rex.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Arterial pressure waveform analysis of cardiac output (APCO) without external calibration (FloTrac/Vigileo™) is critically dependent upon computation of vascular tone that has necessitated several refinements of the underlying software algorithms. We hypothesized that changes in vascular tone induced by high-dose vasopressor therapy affect the accuracy of APCO measurements independently of the FloTrac software version.
METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we assessed the validity of uncalibrated APCO measurements compared with transpulmonary thermodilution cardiac output (TPCO) measurements in 24 patients undergoing vasopressor therapy for the treatment of cerebral vasospasm after subarachnoid haemorrhage.
RESULTS: Patients received vasoactive support with [mean (sd)] 0.53 (0.46) µg kg(-1) min(-1) norepinephrine resulting in mean arterial pressure of 104 (14) mm Hg and mean systemic vascular resistance of 943 (248) dyn s(-1) cm(-5). Cardiac output (CO) data pairs (158) were obtained simultaneously by APCO and TPCO measurements. TPCO ranged from 5.2 to 14.3 litre min(-1), and APCO from 4.1 to 13.7 litre min(-1). Bias and limits of agreement were 0.9 and 2.5 litre min(-1), resulting in an overall percentage error of 29.6% for 68 data pairs analysed with the second-generation FloTrac(®) software and 27.9% for 90 data pairs analysed with the third-generation software. Precision of the reference technique was 2.6%, while APCO measurements yielded a precision of 29.5% and 27.9% for the second- and the third-generation software, respectively. For both software versions, bias (TPCO-APCO) correlated inversely with systemic vascular resistance.
CONCLUSIONS: In neurosurgical patients requiring high-dose vasopressor support, precision of uncalibrated CO measurements depended on systemic vascular resistance. Introduction of the third software algorithm did not improve the insufficient precision (>20%) for APCO measurements observed with the second software version.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21441548     DOI: 10.1093/bja/aer066

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Anaesth        ISSN: 0007-0912            Impact factor:   9.166


  19 in total

1.  Comparison of an advanced minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring with a continuous invasive cardiac output monitoring during lung transplantation.

Authors:  Roland Tomasi; Stephan Prueckner; Stephan Czerner; Renè Schramm; Gerhard Preissler; Bernhard Zwißler; Vera von Dossow-Hanfstingl
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 2.  Reproducibility of transpulmonary thermodilution cardiac output measurements in clinical practice: a systematic review.

Authors:  Raphaël Giraud; Nils Siegenthaler; Paolo Merlani; Karim Bendjelid
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Agreement in hemodynamic monitoring during orthotopic liver transplantation: a comparison of FloTrac/Vigileo at two monitoring sites with pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution.

Authors:  Matthew Lee; Laurence Weinberg; Brett Pearce; Nicholas Scurrah; David A Story; Param Pillai; Peter R McCall; Larry P McNicol; Philip J Peyton
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 2.502

4.  Continuous measurement of cardiac output using pulse-contour analysis: truly beat-to-beat?

Authors:  Steffen Rex
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 2.502

5.  Cardiac output monitoring in septic shock: evaluation of the third-generation Flotrac-Vigileo.

Authors:  Sophie Marqué; Antoine Gros; Loic Chimot; Arnaud Gacouin; Sylvain Lavoué; Christophe Camus; Yves Le Tulzo
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 6.  Newer methods of cardiac output monitoring.

Authors:  Yatin Mehta; Dheeraj Arora
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2014-09-26

Review 7.  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

Review 8.  [Cardiogenic shock].

Authors:  S Rasche; C Georgi
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.041

9.  Positive end-expiratory pressure-induced increase in external jugular venous pressure does not predict fluid responsiveness in laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Min Hur; Seokha Yoo; Jung-Yoon Choi; Sun-Kyung Park; Dhong Eun Jung; Won Ho Kim; Jin-Tae Kim; Jae-Hyon Bahk
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 2.078

10.  [Cardiogenic shock].

Authors:  S Rasche; C Georgi
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 1.443

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.