Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Eur J Anaesthesiol ; 37(10): 920-925, 2020 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32398582

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Invasive pulse wave analysis is used in peri-operative settings to estimate cardiac output (CO). The 'pressure recording analytical method' (PRAM) implemented in the MostCareUp CO monitor is an invasive pulse wave analysis method using high-frequency sampling and analysis of the pulse wave to directly estimate the arterial impedance as a key variable of the proprietary CO estimation algorithm. OBJECTIVE: To compare CO estimated by PRAM (PRAM-CO; test method) with CO measured by pulmonary artery thermodilution (PATD-CO; reference method). DESIGN: Prospective observational method comparison study. PRAM-CO and PATD-CO were assessed simultaneously at five time points with at least 20 min between measurements. Arterial pressure waveforms were carefully checked for damping artefacts and a proprietary electronic filter of the MostCareUp CO monitor was used to optimise waveform quality. SETTING: ICU of a German university hospital from August 2018 until April 2019. PATIENTS: We included adult patients admitted to the ICU after elective off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery who were monitored with a radial arterial catheter and a pulmonary artery catheter. Patients with severe heart valve insufficiency or persistent arrhythmia were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: PATD-CO and PRAM-CO were compared using Bland-Altman analysis accounting for repeated measurements, the percentage error and trending analysis (four-quadrant plot, concordance rate). RESULTS: We analysed 195 paired CO values of 41 patients. Mean PATD-CO and PRAM-CO were 4.99 ±â€Š1.02 and 4.92 ±â€Š1.05 l min, respectively. PATD-CO and PRAM-CO ranged from 3.04 to 8.74 and 2.79 to 8.01 l min, respectively. The mean of the differences between PATD-CO and PRAM-CO was -0.08 ±â€Š0.74 l min with 95% limits of agreement of -1.55 to +1.40 l min. The percentage error was 29.8%. The concordance rate in four-quadrant plot analysis was 92%. CONCLUSION: Using the system's electronic waveform filter PRAM-CO shows good agreement and trending ability compared with PATD-CO in adults after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.


Assuntos
Ponte de Artéria Coronária sem Circulação Extracorpórea , Termodiluição , Adulto , Débito Cardíaco , Humanos , Artéria Pulmonar , Análise de Onda de Pulso , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...