Pulsed dye densitometry with two different sensor types for cardiac output measurement after cardiac surgery: a comparison with the thermodilution technique.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of cardiac output (CO) by the indocyanine green (ICG) dye dilution technique (IDD) with transcutaneous signal detection may be a less invasive alternative to the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC). The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy and reliability of the DDG2001 analyzer (Nihon Kohden Corp, Tokyo, Japan) using a finger (IDDf) and a nose (IDDn) sensor as compared with the thermodilution technique by PAC. METHODS: In 31 consecutive patients after routine cardiac surgery, CO measurements were performed by IDD compared with the thermodilution technique following postoperative haemodynamic stabilization in the intensive care unit. Repeated measurements were made at 30-min intervals. CO was determined by iced water bolus (IWB: mean of three repeated injections) and IDDf or IDDn, respectively (mean of three repeated ICG injections). RESULTS: Thirty-three per cent of all measurements for IDDf and 9% for IDDn failed due to a missing signal detection. Mean bias for IDDf to IWB was -0.5 l min(-1).m(-2) (limits of agreement: -1.8/0.8 l min(-1).m(-2)) and for IDDn to IWB was -0.1 l min(-1).m(-2) (limits of agreement: -1.6/1.5 l min(-1).m(-2)). Correlation between IDDf and IWB (r = 0.2) was found to be inferior to the correlation between IDDn and IWB (r = 0.5). CONCLUSION: The IDD showed a systematic bias compared with the IWB and its performance was limited due to signal detection failure. Therefore, the DDG2001 analyzer cannot be recommended as a substitute for the PAC in routine monitoring of cardiac output after cardiac surgery.

Patient well-being after general anaesthesia: a prospective, randomized, controlled multi-centre trial comparing intravenous and inhalation anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess postoperative patient well-being after total i.v. anaesthesia compared with inhalation anaesthesia by means of validated psychometric tests. METHODS: With ethics committee approval, 305 patients undergoing minor elective gynaecologic or orthopaedic interventions were assigned randomly to total i.v. anaesthesia using propofol or inhalation anaesthesia using sevoflurane. The primary outcome measurement was the actual mental state 90 min and 24 h after anaesthesia assessed by a blinded observer using the Adjective Mood Scale (AMS) and the State-Trait-Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postoperative pain level were determined by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) 90 min and 24 h after anaesthesia (secondary outcome measurements). Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a VAS 24 h after anaesthesia. RESULTS: The AMS and STAI scores were significantly better 90 min after total i.v. anaesthesia compared with inhalation anaesthesia (P=0.02, P=0.05, respectively), but equal 24 h after both anaesthetic techniques (P=0.90, P=0.78, respectively); patient satisfaction was comparable (P=0.26). Postoperative pain was comparable in both groups 90 min and 24 h after anaesthesia (P=0.11, P=0.12, respectively). The incidence of postoperative nausea was reduced after total i.v. compared with inhalation anaesthesia at 90 min (7 vs 35%, P<0.001), and 24 h (33 vs 52%, P=0.001). CONCLUSION: Total i.v. anaesthesia improves early postoperative patient well-being and reduces the incidence of PONV.