首页> 外文期刊>Journal of clinical monitoring and computing >Consistency of cardiac function index and global ejection fraction with global end-diastolic volume in patients with femoral central venous access for transpulmonary thermodilution: a prospective observational study
【24h】

Consistency of cardiac function index and global ejection fraction with global end-diastolic volume in patients with femoral central venous access for transpulmonary thermodilution: a prospective observational study

机译:具有全球静脉静脉静脉静脉通路患者对全球末端舒张分体积的心功能指数和全局喷射分数的一致性,对经营养静脉抑制的患者:一项潜在观察研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Global ejection fraction (GEF) and cardiac function index (CFI) are transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD)-derived indices of the systolic function. Their validity relies on an accurate determination of the global end-diastolic volume (GEDV). Due to an overestimation of GEDV using a femoral central venous catheter (CVC) a correction formula for indexed GEDV (GEDVI) has been implemented in the latest PiCCO (TM)-algorithm. However, a recent study demonstrated that correction for femoral CVC does not pertain to pulmonary vascular permeability index PVPI, which is calculated of extravascular lung water EVLW and GEDV. Therefore, it was the aim of our study to evaluate, if GEF and CFI are corrected for femoral CVC. In ten adult ICU-patients with PiCCO (TM)-monitoring, ten triplicate TPTDs were performed within 30 h. 95 complete data sets were analyzed, if a GEDV corrected for CVC site was applied to derive CFI and GEF. Therefore, we compared displayed values CFIdisplayed and GEF(displayed) to CFIcalculated and GEF(calculated), which were calculated from displayed GEDV, cardiac output and stroke volume. GEDV(calculated) derived from division of GEDVI by predicted body surface area did not substantially differ from GEDV(displayed) (1448 +/- 414 ml vs. 1447 +/- 416 ml), which suggests a correction of GEDV for CVC site. However, CFIdisplayed was significantly lower than CFIcalculated (3.8 +/- 1.6/min vs. 5.1 +/- 1. 8/min: p < 0.001), suggesting that CFIdisplayed is based on an uncorrected GEDV. By contrast, GEF(calculated) (23.1 +/- 8.7 %) was not substantially different from GEF(displayed) (22.4 +/- 8.6 %). Although GEDV and GEF are corrected for femoral CVC site, this does not apply to CFI. However, all indices derived from GEDV should be calculated consistently.
机译:全局喷射分数(GEF)和心脏功能指数(CFI)是间隔热偏差(TPTD)的结束功能的指数。它们的有效性依赖于准确测定全球末端舒张型体积(GEDV)。由于使用股骨的中央静脉导管(CVC)对GEDV的高估,因此在最新的PICCO(TM)-Algorithm中已经实现了用于指数的GEDV(GEDVI)的校正公式。然而,最近的一项研究表明,股骨CVC的校正与肺血管渗透性指数PVPI不涉及肺动脉肺水EVLW和GEDV的肺血管渗透性指数PVPI。因此,如果针对股本CVC纠正了GEF和CFI,我们的研究是评估的研究。在十个成年ICU - 用PICCO(TM)的患者 - 监管中,在30小时内进行十三份TPTD。分析了95个完整数据集,如果对CVC站点进行了校正的GEDV被应用于派生CFI和GEF。因此,我们将显示值与GEF(显示)进行比较到Cficalculated和GEF(计算),从显示的GEDV,心输出和行程体积计算。通过预测的体表面积从GEDVI分裂的GEDV(计算)与GEDV(显示)(1448 +/- 414ml与1447 +/- 416ml)不同,这表明CVC位点的GEDV校正。然而,CFIDISPLAYED显着低于CFicalculated(3.8 +/- 1.6 / min,5.1 +/- 1. 8 / min:P <0.001),表明CFIdisplyed基于未校正的GEDV。相比之下,GEF(计算)(23.1 +/- 8.7%)与GEF没有基本不同(显示)(22.4 +/- 8.6%)。虽然GEDV和GEF纠正了股骨CVC网站,但这不适用于CFI。但是,应始终如一地计算来自GEDV的所有指标。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号