4.6 Article

Transpulmonary thermodilution measurements are not affected by continuous veno-venous hemofiltration at high blood pump flow

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 38, 期 7, 页码 1162-1168

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-012-2573-5

关键词

Transpulmonary thermodilution; Renal replacement therapy; Extracorporeal circuit; Cardiac output; Extravascular lung water

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To assess whether continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) with high blood pump flow alters the measurements of cardiac index (CI), global end-diastolic volume indexed (GEDVI), and extravascular lung water indexed (EVLWI) performed by transpulmonary thermodilution. Sixty-nine patients were included if they were monitored by a PiCCO2 device and received CVVH through a femoral (n = 62) or an internal jugular (n = 7) dialysis catheter. The blood pump flow was set at 250 mL/min (n = 31) or 350 mL/min (n = 38) and the filtration flow at 6,000 mL/h. A first set of data was collected with a first transpulmonary thermodilution (TDon). The blood pump was stopped and the continuous CI derived from pulse contour analysis was recorded (PCoff). A second data set (TDoff) was collected before and a last one (TDon-last) after restarting the blood pump. , , , and were not significantly different in patients with a femoral dialysis catheter (3.49 +/- A 0.96, 3.51 +/- A 0.96, 3.51 +/- A 0.99, and 3.44 +/- A 1.00 L min(-1) m(-2), respectively). This was observed with a blood pump flow at 350 mL/min and at 250 mL/min. In these patients with a femoral dialysis catheter, GEDVI did not significantly change when the blood pump was stopped. EVLWI significantly decreased when the blood pump was stopped but to a non-clinically relevant extent (-0.3 +/- A 0.8 mL/kg). No significant changes in CI, GEDVI, and EVLWI were observed in patients with an internal jugular dialysis catheter over the study period. CVVH with a high blood flow pump does not alter the transpulmonary thermodilution measurements of CI, GEDVI, and EVLWI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据