Literature DB >> 25179459

Measurement of cardiac output in children by pressure-recording analytical method.

Javier Urbano1, Jorge López, Rafael González, María José Solana, Sarah N Fernández, José M Bellón, Jesús López-Herce.   

Abstract

We evaluated two pressure-recording analytical method (PRAM) software versions (v.1 and v.2) to measure cardiac index (CI) in hemodynamically stable critically ill children and investigate factors that influence PRAM values. The working hypothesis was that PRAM CI measurements would stay within normal limits in hemodynamically stable patients. Ninety-five CI PRAM measurements were analyzed in 47 patients aged 1-168 months. Mean CI was 4.1 ± 1.4 L/min/m(2) (range 2.0-7.0). CI was outside limits defined as normal (3-5 L/min/m(2)) in 53.7% of measurements (47.8% with software v.1 and 69.2% with software v.2, p = 0.062). Moreover, 14.7% of measurements were below 2.5 L/min/m(2), and 13.6% were above 6 L/min/m(2). CI was significantly lower in patients with a clearly visible dicrotic notch than in those without (3.7 vs. 4.6 L/min/m(2), p = 0.004) and in children with a radial arterial catheter (3.5 L/min/m(2)) than in those with a brachial (4.4 L/min/m(2), p = 0.021) or femoral catheter (4.7 L/min/m(2), p = 0.005). By contrast, CI was significantly higher in children under 12 months (4.2 vs. 3.6 L/min/m(2), p = 0.034) and weighing under 10 kg (4.2 vs. 3.6 L/min/m(2), p = 0.026). No significant differences were observed between cardiac surgery patients and the rest of children. A high percentage of CI measurements registered by PRAM were outside normal limits in hemodynamically stable, critically ill children. CI measured by PRAM may be influenced by the age, weight, location of catheter, and presence of a dicrotic notch.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25179459     DOI: 10.1007/s00246-014-1014-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol        ISSN: 0172-0643            Impact factor:   1.655


  25 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.  Comparison between cardiac output measured by the pulmonary arterial thermodilution technique and that measured by the femoral arterial thermodilution technique in a pediatric animal model.

Authors:  M Rupérez; J López-Herce; C García; C Sánchez; E García; D Vigil
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2003-12-23       Impact factor: 1.655

3.  Lack of agreement between pulmonary arterial thermodilution cardiac output and the pressure recording analytical method in postoperative cardiac surgery patients.

Authors:  H Paarmann; H V Groesdonk; B Sedemund-Adib; T Hanke; H Heinze; M Heringlake; J Schön
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2010-12-31       Impact factor: 9.166

4.  Ultrasound dilution: an accurate means of determining cardiac output in children.

Authors:  Ivory Crittendon; William J Dreyer; Jamie A Decker; Jeffrey J Kim
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.624

5.  Clinical assessment of cardiac performance in infants and children following cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Jonathan R Egan; Marino Festa; Andrew D Cole; Graham R Nunn; Jonathan Gillis; David S Winlaw
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-02-15       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Development of systemic arterial mechanical properties from infancy to adulthood interpreted by four-element windkessel models.

Authors:  Roberto Burattini; Paola Oriana Di Salvia
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2007-02-15

7.  Are transoesophageal Doppler parameters a reliable guide to paediatric haemodynamic status and fluid management?

Authors:  S M Tibby; M Hatherill; A Durward; I A Murdoch
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

Authors:  R Phillip Dellinger; Mitchell M Levy; Jean M Carlet; Julian Bion; Margaret M Parker; Roman Jaeschke; Konrad Reinhart; Derek C Angus; Christian Brun-Buisson; Richard Beale; Thierry Calandra; Jean-Francois Dhainaut; Herwig Gerlach; Maurene Harvey; John J Marini; John Marshall; Marco Ranieri; Graham Ramsay; Jonathan Sevransky; B Taylor Thompson; Sean Townsend; Jeffrey S Vender; Janice L Zimmerman; Jean-Louis Vincent
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 9.  Monitoring cardiac function in intensive care.

Authors:  S M Tibby; I A Murdoch
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.791

10.  Assessment of cardiac output in children: a comparison between the pressure recording analytical method and Doppler echocardiography.

Authors:  Marco Calamandrei; Lorenzo Mirabile; Stefania Muschetta; Gian Franco Gensini; Luciano De Simone; Salvatore M Romano
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.624

View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparison between pressure-recording analytical method (PRAM) and femoral arterial thermodilution method (FATD) cardiac output monitoring in an infant animal model of cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Javier Urbano; Jorge López; Rafael González; Sarah N Fernández; María José Solana; Blanca Toledo; Ángel Carrillo; Jesús López-Herce
Journal:  Intensive Care Med Exp       Date:  2016-06-03

2.  Usefulness of the maximum rate of pressure rise in the central and peripheral arteries after weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass in pediatric congenital heart surgery: A retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Jung-Won Kim; Ji-Yeon Bang; Chun Soo Park; Mijeung Gwak; Won-Jung Shin; Gyu-Sam Hwang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 1.817

3.  Comparison of hemodynamic effects of sevoflurane and ketamine as basal anesthesia by a new and direct monitoring during induction in children with ventricular septal defect: A prospective, randomized research.

Authors:  Ding Han; Ya-Guang Liu; Shoudong Pan; Yi Luo; Jia Li; Chuan Ou-Yang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.817

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.