ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the accuracy of careful clinical evaluation in hemodynamic status and guidance of PiCCO monitor in clinical treatment.Methods A total of 96 hemodynamic unstable cases were evaluated prior to the insertion of the PiCCO catheter.The attending physician in charge of the patient was required to complete a questionnaire to predict the range of key hemodynamic variables for CI,GEDI,SVRI and EVLWI.Additionally,the attending was also asked to indicate a plan for therapy based on the predicted hemodynamic profile and decide if the predicted therapy plan was altered after the the first measurement of hemodynamic variables.Results The accurate prediction of hemodynamic variables was CI (55.2％),GEDI(60.4％),SVRI(63.5％) 和 EVLWI (78.1％),among which EVLWI had a higher accuracy(P ＜ 0.05).49％ doctors altered their planned therapy according to the result of the PiCCO information.Doctors had more difficulty in accurately predicting hemodynamic values in critical patients which APACHE Ⅱ scored 15 ～25 (42.3％ vs 67.9％ and 42.3 ％ vs 75.0％,x2 =4.755,5.231,P ＜ 0.05).The prediction of patients with acute myocardial infarction was more accurate than those of without acute myocardial infarction,and less to alter the planned therapy(21.1％ vs 55.8％,x2 =7.382,P =0.007).The patients of impaired oxygenation had less accurate predictions and less therapy alterations(32.3％ vs 56.9％,x2 =5.110,P =0.024).Attending was able to predict the hemodynamic status more accurately(63.9％ vs 40％,x2 =5.152,P =0.023) and alter the predicted therapy less(39.3％ vs 65.7％,x2 =6.189,P =0.013) in patients who were enrolled later.Conclusions Clinical evaluation in hemodynamic status of critically ill patients had a lower accuracy,the information obtained by PiCCO often instruct clinical doctors to choose the optimal treatment.