4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Monitoring pulmonary perfusion by electrical impedance tomography: an evaluation in a pig model

期刊

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 53, 期 2, 页码 152-158

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01847.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a non-invasive technique that generates images of impedance distribution. Changes in the pulmonary content of air and blood are major determinants of thoracic impedance. This study was designed to evaluate EIT in monitoring pulmonary perfusion in a wide range of cardiac output. Eight anaesthetised, mechanically ventilated pigs were fitted with a 16-electrode belt at the mid-thoracic level to generate EIT images that were analysed to determine pulse-synchronous systolic changes in impedance (Delta Z(sys)). Stroke volume (SV) was derived using a pulmonary artery catheter. Reductions in cardiac pre-load, and thus pulmonary perfusion, were induced either by inflating the balloon of a Fogarty catheter positioned in the inferior caval vein or by increasing the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). All measurements were performed in a steady state during a short apnoea. Pulse-synchronous changes in Delta Z(sys) were easily discernable during apnoea. Balloon inflation reduced SV to 36% of the baseline, with a corresponding decrease in Delta Z(sys) to 45% of baseline. PEEP reduced SV and Delta Z(sys) to 52% and 44% of the baseline, respectively. Significant correlations between SV and Delta Z(sys) were demonstrated during all measurements (rho=0.62) as well as during balloon inflation (rho=0.73) and increased PEEP (rho=0.40). A Bland-Altman comparison of relative changes in SV and Delta Z(sys) demonstrated a bias of -7%, with 95% limits of agreement at -51% and 36%. EIT provided beat-to-beat approximations of pulmonary perfusion that significantly correlated to a wide range of SV values achieved during both extra and intrapulmonary interventions to change cardiac output.

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

4.2
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