Why the study?
Does peripheral venous administration of lithium chloride provide accurate cardiac output measurements compared to central venous injection in post-surgical ICU patients?
Does peripheral venous administration of lithium chloride provide accurate cardiac output measurements compared to central venous injection in post-surgical ICU patients?
Peripheral venous administration of lithium chloride provides accurate cardiac output measurements comparable to central venous injection, potentially avoiding the risks of central catheterization.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support peripheral lithium injection for cardiac output monitoring in post-surgical ICU patients; hypothesis-generating and leaves open need for randomized validation.
OBJECTIVE: The lithium indicator dilution technique has been shown to measure cardiac output (CO) accurately by using central venous injection of lithium chloride (Li-CCO). This study aimed to compare the measurement of CO by using peripheral venous administration of lithium chloride (Li-PCO) with Li-CCO. DESIGN: Prospective, observational human study. SETTING: Surgical intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Thirty-one patients were studied after major surgery. All patients had arterial, central, and peripheral venous catheters. A total of 24 patients had pulmonary artery catheters. MEASUREMENTS: Serial measurements of Li-CCO and Li-PCO were made during hemodynamically stable conditions. CO was also measured using thermodilution (TDCO) when a pulmonary artery catheter was present. Data were analyzed by linear regression, the generalized estimating equation, and the comparison method described by Bland and Altman. MAIN RESULTS: There were 93 Li-CCOs, 93 Li-PCOs, and 216 TDCOs recorded. The ranges of COs were similar: Li-CCO, 2.36-11.52 L/min (mean, 5.22 L/min; n = 31); Li-PCO, 1.63-9.99 L/min (mean, 5.22 L/min; n = 31), and TDCO, 3.28-10.4 L/min (mean, 5.75 L/min; n = 24). There was good linear correlation between Li-CCO and Li-PCO (R2 =.845). The mean difference for Li-CCO-Li-PCO was very small and insignificant (p =.97), and the limits of agreement were acceptable (mean difference +/- sd, 0.0005 +/- 0.64 L/min). The mean difference for Li-CCO-Li-PCO was smaller if the peripheral injection site was proximal rather than distal to the wrist (p =.053). Li-PCO and Li-CCO values were lower than simultaneously obtained TDCO measurements (Li-PCO-TDCO, -0.538 +/- 0.95 L/min, p =.003; Li-CCO-TDCO, -0.526 +/- 0.67 L/min, p =.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Li-PCO gives a measurement that agrees well with Li-CCO. Accuracy of Li-PCO is probably improved if a proximal arm vein is used. Li-PCO provides accurate measurements of CO without the risks of pulmonary artery or central venous catheterization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garcia-Rodriguez et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: