4.6 Article

An investigation to show the effect of lung fluid on impedance cardiac output in the anaesthetized dog

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 95, 期 4, 页码 458-464

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aei206

关键词

lung, oedema; measurement techniques, cardiac output; model; dog

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Accumulation of lung fluid in the critically ill patient is believed to attenuate impedance cardiac output (COIC) measurements. However, this phenomenon has never been shown experimentally. Methods. In eight anaesthetized and ventilated dogs (weight 15-22 kg) a high-precision flow probe was placed on the ascending aorta via a left thoracotomy incision and the direct cardiac output (COFP) was measured. Simultaneous COIC measurements were made using a Rheo-CardioMonitor (ACMA, Singapore). Lung oedema was induced by intravenous oleic acid 0.1 mg kg(-1). Lung fluid was assessed by the decrease in basal thoracic impedance (Z(b)). Percentage errors between the two methods (COIC-COFP) were calculated and compared as Z(b) decreased at 1 Omega intervals. Results. During the experiment mean Z(b) decreased from 35.9 (SD 5.2) to 27.8 (6.5) Omega (P = 0.0037). This occurred over a period of 225 (range 112-338)min and Z(b) decreased by 1 Omega every 51 (22-68)min. The presence of excessive lung fluid was confirmed at post-mortem. Before lung oedema was induced, COIC was 1.5 (0.6) litre min(-1) and the corresponding value of COFP was 1.5 (0.7) litre min(-1) (data from eight dogs). As Z(b) decreased, and lung fluid accumulated, the error between COIC and COFP widened (P < 0.0001, ANOVA for repeated measures). Eventually, COIC decreased to 0.7 (0.3) litre min(-1) and the corresponding value of COFP was 1.2 (0.3) litre min-1 (Delta Zb = 5 Omega, data from six dogs). Mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure and systemic vascular resistance were kept constant. Conclusion. The presence of lung fluid attenuates COIC measurements with respect to COFP.

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