Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Measurements of cardiac output obtained with transesophageal echocardiography and pulmonary artery thermodilution are not interchangeable

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. A descriptive study of the surge response and outcomes of ICU patients with COVID-19 during first wave in Nordic countries

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Oxygenation targets in ICU patients with COVID-19: a post-hoc sub-group analysis of the HOT-ICU trial

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Programmed, intermittent boluses versus continuous infusion to the sciatic nerve - a non-inferiority randomized, controlled trial

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Supplemental Oxygen for Traumatic Brain Injury - A Systematic Review

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

BACKGROUND: Echocardiography is increasingly becoming an integrated tool for circulatory evaluation in the intensive care unit and the operating room. Therefore, it is imperative to know the reproducibility of measurements obtained by echocardiography. In this study, a comparison of cardiac output (CO) measurements obtained with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) thermodilution (TD) was carried out to test the precision, accuracy and trending ability of CO measurements obtained with TEE.

METHODS: Twenty-five patients completed the study. Each patient was placed in the following successive positions: supine, head-down tilt, head-up tilt, supine, supine with phenylephrine administration, pace heart rate 80 beats per minute (bpm), pace heart rate 110 bpm. TEE CO and PAC CO were measured simultaneously. The agreement was analysed by Bland-Altman plots, and to assess trending ability, a polar plot was constructed.

RESULTS: Both methods showed an acceptable precision 8% (PAC TD) and 16% (TEE). In comparison with PAC TD, the TEE was associated with a bias of -0.22 l/minute [95% confidence interval: -0.54; 0.10], wide limits of agreement (-1.73 l/minute; 1.29 l/minute), a percentage error of 38.6% and a trending ability with a radial degree of 53.6°, corresponding to a poor trending ability.

CONCLUSION: In comparison, CO measurements obtained with TEE and PAC TD had wide limits of agreement, a larger percentage error than would be expected from the precision of the two methods, and a poor trending ability. Thus, TEE is not interchangeable with PAC TD for measuring CO.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftActa Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Vol/bind58
Udgave nummer1
Sider (fra-til)80-8
Antal sider9
ISSN0001-5172
DOI
StatusUdgivet - jan. 2014

ID: 44893072