| Literature DB >> 35666028 |
Sigríður Olga Magnúsdóttir1,2, Carsten Simonsen3, Bodil Steen Rasmussen2,4, Peter Enemark Lund5, Benedict Kjaergaard1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In many animal experiments, it is vital to detect sudden changes in cardiac output (CO). This porcine study compared CO that was measured with a Swan-Ganz pulmonary catheter with the gold standard (which was a transit-time flow probe around the pulmonary artery) during interventions that caused hemodynamic instability.Entities:
Keywords: Swan-Ganz catheter; cardiac output; flow probe; hemodynamics; pigs
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35666028 PMCID: PMC9240745 DOI: 10.1002/ame2.12235
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animal Model Exp Med ISSN: 2576-2095
Animal characteristics before experimental changes in cardiac output
| Parameter | Series 1 | Series 2 |
|---|---|---|
| pH | 7.43 (±0.05) | 7.45 (±0.06) |
| PaCO2 | 5.2 (±0.4) kPa | 5.0 (±1.1) kPa |
| PaO2 | 30.0 (±7.4) kPa | 29.8 (±16.7) kPa |
| Lactate | 1.3 (±1.0) mmol/L | 1.0 (±0.8) mmol/L |
| Temperature | 37.3 (±0.9) °C | 37.9 (±1.2) °C |
| Cardiac output with Swan‐Ganz catheter | 2.9 (±0.6) L/min | 4.1 (±1.2) L/min |
| Cardiac output with transit‐time flow probe | 2.5 (±0.7) L/min | 3.5 (±1.2) L/min |
| Mixed venous blood saturation | 0.73 (±0.6)% | 0.66 (±0.1)% |
| Body weight | 32.8 (±2.8) kg | 46.5 (±8.8) kg |
FIGURE 1(A) The increase in cardiac output (CO) over short time changes with the measured values for the flow probe (FP), the Swan‐Ganz catheter (SG), and the mixed venous oxygenation (SvO2). (B) Four‐quadrant plot demonstrating the poor concordance rate of only 55% between the values measured with the Swan‐Ganz catheter (SG) and the flow probe (FP) during increases in cardiac output (CO).
FIGURE 2(A) The abrupt decrease in cardiac output (CO) over a short period of time with the measured values for the flow probe (FP), the Swan‐Ganz catheter (SG), and the mixed venous oxygenation (SvO2). (B) Four quadrant plot demonstrating the poor concordance rate of only 50% between the values measured with the Swan‐Ganz catheter (SG) and the flow probe (FP) during abrupt decreases in cardiac output (CO).
FIGURE 3(A) Baseline cardiac output (CO) and fluctuations during long term interventions, as measured with Flow Probe (FP), Swan‐Ganz catheter (SG), and concomitant mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2). Each timepoint marks every 15th min measurement for each intervention. Changes are expressed in percent change from the baseline. (B) Linear regression analysis showing the correlation (R = 0.88) between the measures of cardiac output (CO) with the Flow Probe (FP) and the Swan‐Ganz catheter (SG). (C) Bland–Altman analysis of the long term tests of cardiac output (CO) measured with the Flow Probe (FP) and the Swan‐Ganz catheter (SG). The agreement showed a bias of 0.75 L/min. The SG catheter showed the highest values. (D) Four quadrant plot demonstrating the concordance rate of 68% between the values measured with the Swan‐Ganz catheter (SG) and the Flow Probe (FP) during long term changes in cardiac output (CO).
Pros and cons for a Swan‐ganz cather or a flow probe
| Pros | Cons | |
|---|---|---|
| Swan‐Ganz catheter |
Many clinicians are accustomed to using it. Measures pulmonary blood pressure. Can indirectly indicate left atrial pressure. Measures mixed venous oxygenation. Little risk of bleeding. |
Reacts slowly and not with exact values. Risk of arrhythmias. |
| Flow probe |
Measures cardiac output beat‐to‐beat. Reacts almost immediately. |
Highly invasive, requires surgical skill. Risk of bleeding. |