Literature DB >> 25355556

Dynamic device properties of pulse contour cardiac output during transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Martin Petzoldt1, Carsten Riedel, Jan Braeunig, Sebastian Haas, Matthias S Goepfert, Hendrik Treede, Stephan Baldus, Alwin E Goetz, Daniel A Reuter.   

Abstract

This prospective single-center study aimed to determine the responsiveness and diagnostic performance of continuous cardiac output (CCO) monitors based on pulse contour analysis compared with invasive mean arterial pressure (MAP) during predefined periods of acute circulatory deterioration in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The ability of calibrated (CCO(CAL)) and self-calibrated (CCO(AUTOCAL)) pulse contour analysis to detect the hemodynamic response to 37 episodes of balloon aortic valvuloplasty enabled by rapid ventricular pacing was quantified in 13 patients undergoing TAVI. A "low" and a "high" cut-off limit were predefined as a 15 or 25 % decrease from baseline respectively. We found no significant differences between CCO(CAL) and MAP regarding mean response time [low cut-off: 8.6 (7.1-10.5) vs. 8.9 (7.3-10.8) s, p = 0.76; high cut-off: 11.4 (9.7-13.5) vs. 12.6 (10.7-14.9) s, p = 0.32] or diagnostic performance [area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC): 0.99 (0.98-1.0) vs. 1.0 (0.99-1.0), p = 0.46]. But CCOCAL had a significantly higher amplitude response [95.0 (88.7-98.8) % decrease from baseline] than MAP [41.2 (30.0-52.9) %, p < 0.001]. CCOAUTOCAL had a significantly lower AUC [0.83 (0.73-0.93), p < 0.001] than MAP. Moreover, CCO(CAL) detected hemodynamic recovery significantly earlier than MAP. In conclusion, CCO(CAL) and MAP provided equivalent responsiveness and diagnostic performance to detect acute circulatory depression, whereas CCO(AUTOCAL) appeared to be less appropriate. In contrast to CCO(CAL) the amplitude response of MAP was poor. Consequently even small response amplitudes of MAP could indicate severe decreases in CO.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25355556     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-014-9630-2

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


  27 in total

Review 1.  A critical review of the ability of continuous cardiac output monitors to measure trends in cardiac output.

Authors:  Lester A Critchley; Anna Lee; Anthony M-H Ho
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2010-08-24       Impact factor: 5.108

2.  Pulse contour cardiac output monitoring during a complicated percutaneous aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Stefano Romagnoli; Salvatore Mario Romano; Sergio Bevilacqua; Chiara Lazzeri; Gennaro Santoro; Francesco Ciappi; Sandro Gelsomino; Daniele Dini
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth       Date:  2009-05-17       Impact factor: 2.628

3.  Thermal filament continuous thermodilution cardiac output delayed response limits its value during acute hemodynamic instability.

Authors:  L F Poli de Figueiredo; L M Malbouisson; E Y Varicoda; M J Carmona; J O Auler; M Rocha e Silva
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  1999-08

Review 4.  Cardiac output monitoring using indicator-dilution techniques: basics, limits, and perspectives.

Authors:  Daniel A Reuter; Cecil Huang; Thomas Edrich; Stanton K Shernan; Holger K Eltzschig
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2010-03-01       Impact factor: 5.108

5.  Delayed time response of the continuous cardiac output pulmonary artery catheter.

Authors:  L C Siegel; M M Hennessy; R G Pearl
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 5.108

6.  The accuracy and responsiveness of continuous noninvasive arterial pressure during rapid ventricular pacing for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Christoph Schramm; Anja Huber; Konstanze Plaschke
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2013-05-17       Impact factor: 5.108

7.  Evaluation of the accuracy and response time of STAT-mode continuous cardiac output.

Authors:  M A Lazor; E T Pierce; G D Stanley; J L Cass; E F Halpern; R H Bode
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.628

8.  Arterial pressure allows monitoring the changes in cardiac output induced by volume expansion but not by norepinephrine.

Authors:  Xavier Monnet; Alexia Letierce; Olfa Hamzaoui; Denis Chemla; Nadia Anguel; David Osman; Christian Richard; Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Neurohumoral changes during onset and offset of ovine heart failure: role of ANP.

Authors:  M A Fitzpatrick; M G Nicholls; E A Espiner; H Ikram; P Bagshaw; T G Yandle
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1989-04

10.  Anesthesia management for transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a case series.

Authors:  Jens Fassl; Thomas Walther; Heinrich Volker Groesdonk; Joerg Kempfert; Michael Andrew Borger; Markus Scholz; Chirojit Mukherjee; Axel Linke; Gerhard Schuler; Friedrich Wilhelm Mohr; Joerg Ender
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth       Date:  2009-02-25       Impact factor: 2.628

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2015 end of year summary: cardiovascular and hemodynamic monitoring.

Authors:  Karim Bendjelid; Steffen Rex; Thomas Scheeren; Bernd Saugel
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  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

3.  Cardiac output monitoring in severe aortic stenosis: Which technologies are reliable?

Authors:  Martin Petzoldt; Daniel A Reuter
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-03-26       Impact factor: 2.502

4.  Reliability of transcardiopulmonary thermodilution cardiac output measurement in experimental aortic valve insufficiency.

Authors:  Martin Petzoldt; Constantin J Trepte; Jan Ridder; Stefan Maisch; Philipp Klapsing; Jan F Kersten; Hans Peter Richter; Jens C Kubitz; Daniel A Reuter; Matthias S Goepfert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.