| Literature DB >> 28438216 |
Shun Kamoi1, Christopher Pretty2, Joel Balmer2, Shaun Davidson2, Antoine Pironet3, Thomas Desaive3, Geoffrey M Shaw4, J Geoffrey Chase2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pressure contour analysis is commonly used to estimate cardiac performance for patients suffering from cardiovascular dysfunction in the intensive care unit. However, the existing techniques for continuous estimation of stroke volume (SV) from pressure measurement can be unreliable during hemodynamic instability, which is inevitable for patients requiring significant treatment. For this reason, pressure contour methods must be improved to capture changes in vascular properties and thus provide accurate conversion from pressure to flow.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiovascular system; Hemodynamic monitor; Intensive care; Physiological modelling; Pressure contour analysis; Pulse wave velocity; Reservoir–wave pressure; Stroke volume; Water hammer; Windkessel model
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28438216 PMCID: PMC5404318 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-017-0341-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Summary of interventions made for each pig in the experiment
| Pig no. | Volume expansion | Dobutamine (µg/kg/min) | Dobutamine + volume expansion | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 180 ml | 360 ml | 540 ml | 720 ml | 900 ml | 2.5 | 5 | 180 ml | |
| 1 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | × |
| 2 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | × |
| 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | × | ✓ |
| 4 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | × | ✓ | ✓ |
Fig. 1Example of relationship between directly measured SV and PEEP from an experiment. Top panel measured SV from left ventricular admittance signal. Bottom panel measured airway pressure from mechanical ventilator
Fig. 2Example of measured aortic arch (black) and abdominal aorta (dashed red) pressure waveforms. Thin lines represent tangent line along maximum pressure gradient and horizontal lines along minimum pressure point for each of the waveform. The green crosses represent the identified ‘foot’ of the pressure waveforms at times t1 and t2 for aortic arch and abdominal pressure, respectively. Transit time can be seen as the difference (t2–t1) between these time points
Fig. 3Detected maximum negative gradient point (blue +) and detected end systolic point using the modified function (red x) on a single beat pressure waveform. Top panel measured pressure waveform having multiple descending inflection points. Second panel pressure gradient dP /dt and detected global minimum, shown as blue cross. Third panel weight function WF(t) applied to dP /dt. Bottom panel modified function showing product of dP /dt and WF(t), where the red cross shows the identified location of the end systolic point
Fig. 4Error surface showing the discrepancy between P (td < t < tf) and calculated P using different value of L and β in Eq. 7. The red line represent optimal parameter β for a given L
Fig. 5The error curve showing the discrepancy between P at ESP and calculated P at ESP using optimal sets of L and β identified by grid search. The red circle shows the identified optimal parameter L for a given pressure waveform
Fig. 6Correlation plot showing relationship between relative change in aortic area A and systolic period relative to the calibration period. A and systolic period represents the value obtained in the calibration period
Summary of identified parameters L , A for all pigs and ranges of physiological parameters, mean aortic pressure (MAP), PWV, systolic period, and measured SV for volume expansion and dobutamine period
| Pig 1 | Pig 2 | Pig 3 | Pig 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight (kg) | ||||
| 24.5 | 20 | 23.5 | 23.3 | |
| Identified aortic dimension | ||||
| L-ao (m) | 0.88 | 0.41 | 0.89 | 0.91 |
| Aao,0 (mm2) | 201 | 269 | 473 | 163 |
| Volume expansion | ||||
| MAP (mmHg) | 152 [136 to 182] | 114 [93 to 136] | 111 [93 to 132] | 55 [42 to 77] |
| PWV (m/s) | 5.5 [5.3 to 6.0] | 6.7 [6.4 to 6.9] | 8.5 [8.2 to 8.9] | 3.9 [3.7 to 4.1] |
| Heart rate (beats/min) | 64 [62 to 67] | 86 [78 to 94] | 81 [73 to 88] | 71 [69 to 74] |
| Systolic period (s) | 0.38 [0.33 to 0.46] | 0.32 [0.25 to 0.39] | 0.31 [0.26 to 0.38] | 0.33 [0.31 to 0.36] |
| SVmeasured (ml) | 34 [28 to 40] | 19 [16 to 23] | 30 [26 to 39] | 29 [25 to 34] |
| Dobutamine/+ volume expansion | ||||
| Pressure (mmHg) | 150 [123 to 184] | 90 [54 to 124] | 100 [79 to 123] | 61 [43 to 95] |
| PWV (m/s) | 6.0 [5.6 to 6.7] | 6.3 [5.4 to 6.8] | 8.2 [7.6 to 8.8] | 4.6 [4.3 to 5.2] |
| Heart rate (beats/min) | 104 [90 to 108] | 141 [136 to 142] | 109 [98 to 120] | 107 [93 to 115] |
| Systolic period (s) | 0.23 [0.22 to 0.31] | 0.19 [0.18 to 0.22] | 0.23 [0.19 to 0.3] | 0.23 [0.21 to 0.31] |
| SVmeansreud (ml) | 28 [23 to 36] | 24 [17 to 27] | 25 [21 to 28] | 27 [22 to 31] |
| Total no of heart beats analysed | ||||
| 2956 | 4945 | 3057 | 2451 | |
Data are presented as the mean [5th–95th percentiles]
Fig. 7Bland–Altman plots a–d showing agreements between measured and estimated SV for all pigs. Red dashed line showing the bias and 95% interval. Right panel showing the error distribution between measured and estimated SV values
Summary of Bland–Altman analysis for each pigs
| Pig no. | Bland–Altman results (ml) | Precision (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Pig 1 | −6.8 [−18.9 to 3.0] | 31 |
| Pig 2 | 1.7 [−1.8 to 5.7] | 20 |
| Pig 3 | −3.3 [−10.5 to 3.6] | 22 |
| Pig 4 | −2.8 [−12.5 to 5.4] | 30 |
Data are presented as the bias [2.5th–97.5th percentiles], where bias is the mean difference between measured and estimated SV. Precision is calculated as half of 95% range divided by mean SV for each pig
Fig. 8Time series plot a–d showing measured and estimated SV in the last RM period of the experiment for all pigs. Top panel measured SV from admittance catheter (black line) and estimated SV using Eq. (13) (red line). Bottom panel simultaneously measured airway pressure showing PEEP changes during recruitment manoeuvers RM (blue line)