Literature DB >> 31004273

Validation of electrical velocimetry in resuscitation of patients undergoing liver transplantation. Observational study.

Ahmed M Mukhtar1, Mohamed Elayashy2, Amr H Sayed2, Gihan M Obaya2, Akram A Eladawy2, Mai A Ali2, Hisham M Dahab2, Dina Z Khalaf2, Mostafa A Mohamed3, Amr H Elfouly4, Gad M Behairy3, Amr A Abdelaal3.   

Abstract

Major hemodynamic changes are frequently noted during liver transplantation (LT). We evaluated the performance of electrical velocimetry (EV) as compared to that of TEE in SV optimization during liver transplantation. This was an observational study in 32 patients undergoing LT. We compared SV values measured simultaneously by EV (SVEV) and TEE (SVTEE) at baseline 30 min after induction, at the end of dissection phase, 30 min after anhepatic phase, 30 min after reperfusion. We also evaluated the reliability of EV to track changes In SV before and after 49 fluid challenges. Finally, the SV variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) were tested as predictors for volume responsiveness, defined as an increase in SV ≥ 10% after 250 ml of colloid. For 112 paired SV data, the overall correlation was 0.76 and bias (limits of agreement) 0.3 (- 29 to 29) ml percentage error 62%. The EV was able to track changes in SV with a concordance rate of 97%, and a sensitivity and specificity of 93% to detect a positive fluid challenge. The AUC values (with 95% confidence intervals) for SVV and PPV were 0.68 (0.52-0.83) and 0.72 (0.57-0.86), respectively, indicating low predictive capacity in these setting. The absolute values of SV derived from EV did not agree with SV derived from TEE. However, EV was able to track the direction of changes in SV during hemodynamic management of patients undergoing liver transplantation.Clinical trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03228329 prospectively Registered on 13-July-2017.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electrical velocimetry; Liver transplantation; Stroke volume; Transesophageal Echo

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31004273     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-019-00313-z

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


  16 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

Review 2.  Fluid challenge revisited.

Authors:  Jean-Louis Vincent; Max Harry Weil
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 7.598

3.  Evaluation of the pulse pressure variation index as a predictor of fluid responsiveness during orthotopic liver transplantation.

Authors:  G Gouvêa; R Diaz; L Auler; R Toledo; J M Martinho
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2009-05-19       Impact factor: 9.166

4.  Validation of cardiac output measurement with the LiDCO™ pulse contour system in patients with impaired left ventricular function after cardiac surgery.

Authors:  B Mora; I Ince; B Birkenberg; K Skhirtladze; E Pernicka; H J Ankersmit; M Dworschak
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2011-05-13       Impact factor: 6.955

5.  Continuous non-invasive cardiac output measurements in the neonate by electrical velocimetry: a comparison with echocardiography.

Authors:  Shahab Noori; Benazir Drabu; Sadaf Soleymani; Istvan Seri
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 5.747

6.  Comparison of esCCO and transthoracic echocardiography for non-invasive measurement of cardiac output intensive care.

Authors:  B Bataille; M Bertuit; M Mora; M Mazerolles; P Cocquet; B Masson; P E Moussot; J Ginot; S Silva; J Larché
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2012-08-19       Impact factor: 9.166

7.  Continuous non-invasive cardiac output monitoring during exercise: validation of electrical cardiometry with Fick and thermodilution methods.

Authors:  Y H Liu; B P Dhakal; C Keesakul; R M Kacmarek; G D Lewis; Y Jiang
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 9.166

8.  Electrical velocimetry for noninvasive cardiac output and stroke volume variation measurements in dogs undergoing cardiovascular surgery.

Authors:  Kazumasu Sasaki; Tatsushi Mutoh; Tomoko Mutoh; Ryuta Kawashima; Hirokazu Tsubone
Journal:  Vet Anaesth Analg       Date:  2017-02-23       Impact factor: 1.648

9.  The use of bioreactance and carotid Doppler to determine volume responsiveness and blood flow redistribution following passive leg raising in hemodynamically unstable patients.

Authors:  Paul E Marik; Alex Levitov; Alisha Young; Lois Andrews
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 9.410

10.  Assessment of the clinical utility of an ultrasonic monitor of cardiac output (the USCOM) and agreement with thermodilution measurement.

Authors:  Martin Boyle; Liz Steel; Gordon M Flynn; Margherita Murgo; Lisa Nicholson; Maureen O'Brien; David Bihari
Journal:  Crit Care Resusc       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.159

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.