OBJECTIVE: Comparison of global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) obtained by femoral and jugular transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) indicator injections using the EV1000/VolumnView(®) device (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA). METHODS: In an 87-year-old woman with hypovolemic shock and equipped with both jugular and femoral vein access and monitored with the EV1000/VolumeView(®) device, we recorded 10 datasets, each comprising duplicate TPTD via femoral access and duplicate TPTD (20 ml cold saline) via jugular access. RESULTS: Mean femoral GEDVI ((674.6±52.3) ml/m(2)) was significantly higher than jugular GEDVI ((552.3±69.7) ml/m(2)), with P=0.003. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a bias of (+122±61) ml/m(2), limits of agreement of -16 and +260 ml/m(2), and a percentage error of 22%. Use of the correction-formula recently suggested for the PiCCO(®) device significantly reduced bias and percentage error. Similarly, mean values of parameters derived from GEDVI such as pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI; 1.244±0.101 vs. 1.522±0.139; P<0.001) and global ejection fraction (GEF; (24.7±1.6)% vs. (28.1±1.8)%; P<0.001) were significantly different in the case of femoral compared to jugular indicator injection. Furthermore, the mean cardiac index derived from femoral indicator injection ((4.50±0.36) L/(min·m²)) was significantly higher (P=0.02) than that derived from jugular indicator injection ((4.12±0.44) L/(min·m²)), resulting in a bias of (+0.38±0.37) L/(min·m²) and a percentage error of 19.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Femoral access for indicator injection results in markedly altered values provided by the EV1000/VolumeView(®), particularly for GEDVI, PVPI, and GEF.
OBJECTIVE: Comparison of global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) obtained by femoral and jugular transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) indicator injections using the EV1000/VolumnView(®) device (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA). METHODS: In an 87-year-old woman with hypovolemic shock and equipped with both jugular and femoral vein access and monitored with the EV1000/VolumeView(®) device, we recorded 10 datasets, each comprising duplicate TPTD via femoral access and duplicate TPTD (20 ml cold saline) via jugular access. RESULTS: Mean femoral GEDVI ((674.6±52.3) ml/m(2)) was significantly higher than jugular GEDVI ((552.3±69.7) ml/m(2)), with P=0.003. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a bias of (+122±61) ml/m(2), limits of agreement of -16 and +260 ml/m(2), and a percentage error of 22%. Use of the correction-formula recently suggested for the PiCCO(®) device significantly reduced bias and percentage error. Similarly, mean values of parameters derived from GEDVI such as pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI; 1.244±0.101 vs. 1.522±0.139; P<0.001) and global ejection fraction (GEF; (24.7±1.6)% vs. (28.1±1.8)%; P<0.001) were significantly different in the case of femoral compared to jugular indicator injection. Furthermore, the mean cardiac index derived from femoral indicator injection ((4.50±0.36) L/(min·m²)) was significantly higher (P=0.02) than that derived from jugular indicator injection ((4.12±0.44) L/(min·m²)), resulting in a bias of (+0.38±0.37) L/(min·m²) and a percentage error of 19.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Femoral access for indicator injection results in markedly altered values provided by the EV1000/VolumeView(®), particularly for GEDVI, PVPI, and GEF.
Entities:
Keywords:
Central venous catheter; EV1000/VolumeView; Femoral vein; Global end-diastolic volume; Hemodynamic monitoring; Jugular vein; PiCCO; Transpulmonary thermodilution
Authors: Vsevolod V Kuzkov; Mikhail Y Kirov; Mikhail A Sovershaev; Vladimir N Kuklin; Evgeny V Suborov; Kristine Waerhaug; Lars J Bjertnaes Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Sven Schmidt; Timm H Westhoff; Clemens Hofmann; Juergen-Heiner Schaefer; Walter Zidek; Friederike Compton; Markus van der Giet Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: K Bendjelid; G Marx; N Kiefer; T P Simon; M Geisen; A Hoeft; N Siegenthaler; C K Hofer Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Kedar S Deshpande; Carlo Hatem; Harry L Ulrich; Brian P Currie; Thomas K Aldrich; Christopher W Bryan-Brown; Vladimir Kvetan Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Sebastian Mair; Julia Tschirdewahn; Simon Götz; Johanna Frank; Veit Phillip; Benedikt Henschel; Caroline Schultheiss; Ulrich Mayr; Sebastian Noe; Matthias Treiber; Roland M Schmid; Bernd Saugel; Wolfgang Huber Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2016-11-05 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Wolfgang Huber; Uli Mayr; Andreas Umgelter; Michael Franzen; Wolfgang Reindl; Roland M Schmid; Florian Eckel Journal: J Zhejiang Univ Sci B Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.066
Authors: Wolfgang Huber; Andrea Gruber; Maximilian Eckmann; Felicia Elkmann; Ines Klein; Tobias Lahmer; Ulrich Mayr; Raphael Schellnegger; Jochen Schneider; Gonzalo Batres-Baires; Lisa Fekecs; Analena Beitz; Helena Berbara; Roland Schmid; Alexander Herner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 3.240