4.6 Article

Comparison of two methods for enhanced continuous circulatory monitoring in patients with septic shock

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 33, 期 10, 页码 1805-1810

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-007-0703-2

关键词

cardiac output; central venous pressure; continuous monitoring; global end-diastolic volume; pulmonary artery occlusion pressure; right ventricular end-diastolic volume; septic shock

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare a modified pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) and pulse-contour analysis by the PiCCO (Pulsion Medical Systems, Munich, Germany) system for continuous assessment of cardiac output in patients with septic shock. In addition, to assess the relationships between an index of global end-diastolic volume (GEDV) derived by the PiCCO system with traditional PAC-derived indicators of filling: central venous pressure; pulmonary artery occlusion pressure; and right ventricular end- diastolic volume (RVEDV). Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Surgical intensive care unit of a university hospital. Patients and participants: 14 patients with septic shock. Interventions: None. Measurements and results: A significant correlation was found between continuous cardiac output by PAC ( CCOPAC) and by pulse-contour analysis (r(2) = 0.714, p < 0.0001), accompanied by a bias of 0.11 min(-1) and a precision of 2.71 min(-1). The correlation between CCOPAC and cardiac output measured by transcardiopulmonary thermodilution was also significant (r(2) = 0.781, < 0.0001). There was a bias for the two methods of 0.21 min(-1), and a precision of 2.21 min(-1). The GEDV showed no correlation with central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, or RVEDV. Conclusion: In patients with septic shock, the averaged bias in continuous measurement of cardiac output by both a modified pulmonary artery catheter and pulse- contour analysis was small, but variability was large. No correlation was found between GEDV and RVEDV. The clinical importance of different cardiac filling parameters needs further investigation.

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