Key result
Minimally invasive assessment of DO2 and VO2 showed moderate (35-38% error) and poor (47% error) agreement, respectively, compared to invasive gold standard measurements in cardiac surgery.
Why the study?
Does minimally invasive assessment of oxygen delivery and consumption agree with invasive gold standard measurements in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery?
Population
29 adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery, mean age 71 ± 8 years, single center.
Comparison
Minimally invasive assessment of oxygen delivery… vs Invasive assessment using arterial and pulmonary…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
Intraoperative
Authors
Loading...
Precludes clinical reliance on minimally invasive oxygen monitoring during cardiac surgery; leaves open.
Observational (n=29)
No
Does minimally invasive assessment of oxygen delivery and consumption agree with invasive gold standard measurements in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery?
Minimally invasive determinations of oxygen delivery and consumption show moderate to poor agreement with invasive gold standard measurements in cardiac surgery patients, largely due to inaccuracies in minimally invasive cardiac output measurements.
Burtman et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Cardiac surgery (n=29). Minimally invasive assessment of oxygen delivery (DO2) and oxygen consumption (VO2) vs. Invasive assessment (gold standard) was evaluated on Level of agreement between minimally invasive and invasive DO2 and VO2 measurements. Minimally invasive assessment of DO2 and VO2 showed moderate (35-38% error) and poor (47% error) agreement, respectively, compared to invasive gold standard measurements in cardiac surgery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: