Bart Hiemstra1, Geert Koster2, Renske Wiersema2, Yoran M Hummel3, Pim van der Harst3, Harold Snieder4, Ruben J Eck2, Thomas Kaufmann5, Thomas W L Scheeren5, Anders Perner6,7, Jørn Wetterslev7,8, Anne Marie G A de Smet2, Frederik Keus2, Iwan C C van der Horst2. 1. Department of Critical Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. b.hiemstra01@umcg.nl. 2. Department of Critical Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Cardiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 7. Centre for Research in Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 8. The Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinical examination is often the first step to diagnose shock and estimate cardiac index. In the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I, we assessed the association and diagnostic performance of clinical signs for estimation of cardiac index in critically ill patients. METHODS: In this prospective, single-centre cohort study, we included all acutely ill patients admitted to the ICU and expected to stay > 24 h. We conducted a protocolised clinical examination of 19 clinical signs followed by critical care ultrasonography for cardiac index measurement. Clinical signs were associated with cardiac index and a low cardiac index (< 2.2 L min-1 m2) in multivariable analyses. Diagnostic test accuracies were also assessed. RESULTS: We included 1075 patients, of whom 783 (73%) had a validated cardiac index measurement. In multivariable regression, respiratory rate, heart rate and rhythm, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, central-to-peripheral temperature difference, and capillary refill time were statistically independently associated with cardiac index, with an overall R2 of 0.30 (98.5% CI 0.25-0.35). A low cardiac index was observed in 280 (36%) patients. Sensitivities and positive and negative predictive values were below 90% for all signs. Specificities above 90% were observed only for 110/280 patients, who had atrial fibrillation, systolic blood pressures < 90 mmHg, altered consciousness, capillary refill times > 4.5 s, or skin mottling over the knee. CONCLUSIONS: Seven out of 19 clinical examination findings were independently associated with cardiac index. For estimation of cardiac index, clinical examination was found to be insufficient in multivariable analyses and in diagnostic accuracy tests. Additional measurements such as critical care ultrasonography remain necessary.
PURPOSE: Clinical examination is often the first step to diagnose shock and estimate cardiac index. In the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I, we assessed the association and diagnostic performance of clinical signs for estimation of cardiac index in critically illpatients. METHODS: In this prospective, single-centre cohort study, we included all acutely ill patients admitted to the ICU and expected to stay > 24 h. We conducted a protocolised clinical examination of 19 clinical signs followed by critical care ultrasonography for cardiac index measurement. Clinical signs were associated with cardiac index and a low cardiac index (< 2.2 L min-1 m2) in multivariable analyses. Diagnostic test accuracies were also assessed. RESULTS: We included 1075 patients, of whom 783 (73%) had a validated cardiac index measurement. In multivariable regression, respiratory rate, heart rate and rhythm, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, central-to-peripheral temperature difference, and capillary refill time were statistically independently associated with cardiac index, with an overall R2 of 0.30 (98.5% CI 0.25-0.35). A low cardiac index was observed in 280 (36%) patients. Sensitivities and positive and negative predictive values were below 90% for all signs. Specificities above 90% were observed only for 110/280 patients, who had atrial fibrillation, systolic blood pressures < 90 mmHg, altered consciousness, capillary refill times > 4.5 s, or skin mottling over the knee. CONCLUSIONS: Seven out of 19 clinical examination findings were independently associated with cardiac index. For estimation of cardiac index, clinical examination was found to be insufficient in multivariable analyses and in diagnostic accuracy tests. Additional measurements such as critical care ultrasonography remain necessary.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiac index; Critical care; Haemodynamics; Intensive care unit; Physical examination; Prospective study; Sensitivity and specificity; Ultrasonography
Authors: Manuel G Iregui; Donna Prentice; Glenda Sherman; Lynn Schallom; Carrie Sona; Marin H Kollef Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Arthur P Wheeler; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; David Schoenfeld; Herbert P Wiedemann; Ben deBoisblanc; Alfred F Connors; R Duncan Hite; Andrea L Harabin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Roberto M Lang; Luigi P Badano; Victor Mor-Avi; Jonathan Afilalo; Anderson Armstrong; Laura Ernande; Frank A Flachskampf; Elyse Foster; Steven A Goldstein; Tatiana Kuznetsova; Patrizio Lancellotti; Denisa Muraru; Michael H Picard; Ernst R Rietzschel; Lawrence Rudski; Kirk T Spencer; Wendy Tsang; Jens-Uwe Voigt Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Richard M Nowak; Ayan Sen; Audwin J Garcia; Heidi Wilkie; James J Yang; Michael R Nowak; Michele L Moyer Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: José Castela Forte; Galiya Yeshmagambetova; Maureen L van der Grinten; Bart Hiemstra; Thomas Kaufmann; Ruben J Eck; Frederik Keus; Anne H Epema; Marco A Wiering; Iwan C C van der Horst Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Thomas Kaufmann; Ramon P Clement; Bart Hiemstra; Jaap Jan Vos; Thomas W L Scheeren; Frederik Keus; Iwan C C van der Horst Journal: J Intensive Care Date: 2019-04-11
Authors: Renske Wiersema; Jacqueline Koeze; Ruben J Eck; Thomas Kaufmann; Bart Hiemstra; Geert Koster; Casper F M Franssen; Suvi T Vaara; Frederik Keus; Iwan C C Van der Horst Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: Geert Koster; Thomas Kaufmann; Bart Hiemstra; Renske Wiersema; Madelon E Vos; Devon Dijkhuizen; Adrian Wong; Thomas W L Scheeren; Yoran M Hummel; Frederik Keus; Iwan C C van der Horst Journal: Ultrasound J Date: 2020-01-08
Authors: Renske Wiersema; Ruben J Eck; Mikko Haapio; Jacqueline Koeze; Meri Poukkanen; Frederik Keus; Iwan C C van der Horst; Ville Pettilä; Suvi T Vaara Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2019-12-31 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Thomas Kaufmann; José Castela Forte; Bart Hiemstra; Marco A Wiering; Marco Grzegorczyk; Anne H Epema; Iwan C C van der Horst Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2019-10-30