PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 1, 1995Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica49 citations

Continuous cardiac output measurements in the perioperative period

View Full Paper
CJC-J JakobsenNMN. C. MelsenEAElse Bay Andresen

Structured PICO

Does continuous cardiac output measurement (CCO) accurately correlate with bolus thermodilution cardiac output (BCO) in patients undergoing open heart or abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery?

P
Population
20 patients scheduled for open heart or abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery
I
Intervention
Continuous cardiac output measurements (CCO) using a new system based on the thermodilution method
C
Comparator
Bolus thermodilution cardiac output (BCO) determinations (five, iced)
O
Outcome
Agreement, bias, and correlation between continuous cardiac output (CCO) and bolus thermodilution cardiac output (BCO)surrogate

Continuous cardiac output measurement using a new thermodilution-based system shows strong correlation with standard bolus thermodilution in the perioperative period.

Abstract

Management of critically ill patients is based on knowledge of fundamental physiologic variables. Automatized and continuous measurement of these variables is preferable. A new system based upon the thermodilution method has been developed to measure cardiac output automatically and continuously. We evaluated the system in the potentially unstable perioperative period with possible great and rapid changes in cardiac output. Twenty patients, scheduled for open heart or abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery, were included in the study, which was approved by the local ethical committee. The patients were monitored up to 30 hours. At random intervals five, iced, bolus thermodilution cardiac output (BCO) determinations were made and compared to the continuous cardiac output measurements (CCO). Two hundred and thirty-one pairs of data were obtained. The cardiac outputs ranged from 2.5-14.9 l.min-1. The absolute bias was 0.31 l.min-1 (95% limits of agreement -14 l.min-1 to 2.0 l.min-1). The mean relative error was 4.7% with a standard deviation of the relative error of 15.4%. The linear regression was represented by: CCO = 1,1352.BCO-0.36. The correlation coefficient R was 0.90 (P < 0.001). In conclusion, the CCO measurement technique is a promising clinical method. The method is straightforward, requires no calibration, is independent of vascular geometry and measures with its limitations volumetric flow. Finally automatic and continuous patient monitoring provides more information and has potential to reveal previously undetected haemodynamic events.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Jakobsen et al. (1995) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a71d37ee71d69abee095db6https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.1995.tb04104.x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper