Literature DB >> 24681660

A prospective comparison of a noninvasive cardiac output monitor versus esophageal Doppler monitor for goal-directed fluid therapy in colorectal surgery patients.

Nathan H Waldron1, Timothy E Miller, Julie K Thacker, Amy K Manchester, William D White, John Nardiello, Magdi A Elgasim, Richard E Moon, Tong J Gan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) is associated with improved outcomes after surgery. The esophageal Doppler monitor (EDM) is widely used, but has several limitations. The NICOM, a completely noninvasive cardiac output monitor (Cheetah Medical), may be appropriate for guiding GDFT. No prospective studies have compared the NICOM and the EDM. We hypothesized that the NICOM is not significantly different from the EDM for monitoring during GDFT.
METHODS: One hundred adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery participated in this study. Patients in phase I (n = 50) had intraoperative GDFT guided by the EDM while the NICOM was connected, and patients in phase II (n = 50) had intraoperative GDFT guided by the NICOM while the EDM was connected. Each patient's stroke volume was optimized using 250-mL colloid boluses. Agreement between the monitors was assessed, and patient outcomes (postoperative pain, nausea, and return of bowel function), complications (renal, pulmonary, infectious, and wound complications), and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared.
RESULTS: Using a 10% increase in stroke volume after fluid challenge, agreement between monitors was 60% at 5 minutes, 61% at 10 minutes, and 66% at 15 minutes, with no significant systematic disagreement (McNemar P > 0.05) at any time point. The EDM had significantly more missing data than the NICOM. No clinically significant differences were found in total LOS or other outcomes. The mean LOS was 6.56 ± 4.32 days in phase I and 6.07 ± 2.85 days in phase II, and 95% confidence limits for the difference were -0.96 to +1.95 days (P = 0.5016).
CONCLUSIONS: The NICOM performs similarly to the EDM in guiding GDFT, with no clinically significant differences in outcomes, and offers increased ease of use as well as fewer missing data points. The NICOM may be a viable alternative monitor to guide GDFT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24681660     DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000182

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  14 in total

Review 1.  Accuracy and precision of minimally-invasive cardiac output monitoring in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Koichi Suehiro; Alexandre Joosten; Linda Suk-Ling Murphy; Olivier Desebbe; Brenton Alexander; Sang-Hyun Kim; Maxime Cannesson
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-08-29       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 2.  [Meta-analyses on measurement precision of non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring technologies in adults].

Authors:  G Pestel; K Fukui; M Higashi; I Schmidtmann; C Werner
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  In support of 'usual' perioperative care.

Authors:  K Raghunathan; X S Wang
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 9.166

4.  Comparison of stroke volume measurement between non-invasive bioreactance and esophageal Doppler in patients undergoing major abdominal-pelvic surgery.

Authors:  Gennaro De Pascale; Mervyn Singer; David Brealey
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2017-04-08       Impact factor: 2.078

5.  A Century of Technology in Anesthesia & Analgesia.

Authors:  Jane S Moon; Maxime Cannesson
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 6.627

6.  Ultrasound and NICOM in the assessment of fluid responsiveness in patients with mild sepsis in the emergency department: a pilot study.

Authors:  Martha Oord; Tycho J Olgers; Mirjam Doff-Holman; Mark P M Harms; Jack J M Ligtenberg; Jan C Ter Maaten
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-01-27       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Effect of Intraoperative Goal-Directed Fluid Management on Tissue Oxygen Tension in Obese Patients: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Jakob Mühlbacher; Florian Luf; Oliver Zotti; Harald Herkner; Edith Fleischmann; Barbara Kabon
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 4.129

8.  Dynamic Measurement of Hemodynamic Parameters and Cardiac Preload in Adults with Dengue: A Prospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Vipa Thanachartwet; Anan Wattanathum; Duangjai Sahassananda; Petch Wacharasint; Supat Chamnanchanunt; Ei Khine Kyaw; Akanitt Jittmittraphap; Mali Naksomphun; Manoon Surabotsophon; Varunee Desakorn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Hemodynamic monitoring in the era of digital health.

Authors:  Frederic Michard
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 6.925

Review 10.  Perioperative fluid management: From physiology to improving clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Victoria A Bennett; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2017-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.