Key result
The pressure recording analytical method (PRAM) accurately quantified peripheral blood flow during extracorporeal circulation compared to pump readings (mean difference 0.11 +/- 0.33 L/min).
Why the study?
Does the pressure recording analytical method (PRAM) accurately quantify peripheral blood flow compared to thermodilution and roller-pump devices in patients undergoing elective coronary surgery?
Observational (n=32)
Does the pressure recording analytical method (PRAM) accurately quantify peripheral blood flow compared to thermodilution and roller-pump devices in patients undergoing elective coronary surgery?
Mean Difference: 0.11
PRAM provides accurate, continuous quantification of peripheral blood flow during cardiac surgery with extracorporeal circulation, comparable to standard reference methods.
May facilitate continuous peripheral flow monitoring during cardiac surgery; leaves open randomized validation versus thermodilution.
BACKGROUND: The pressure recording analytical method (PRAM) is a method for real-time beat-to-beat quantification of peripheral blood flow based on the analysis of arterial waveform morphology. Since PRAM can be implemented in any conditions of flow, whether physiological or artificial, we assessed its accuracy in patients undergoing cardiac surgery during extracorporeal circulation (ECC), using the roller-pump device as the reference gold standard. METHODS: We prospectively studied 32 patients undergoing elective coronary surgery. Flow values obtained by PRAM from the radial artery were compared with simultaneous values by thermodilution in physiological conditions of flow and with the roller-pump device readings during ECC. RESULTS: Before and after ECC, the overall estimates of flow measured by PRAM closely agreed with thermodilution (mean difference 0.07 +/- 0.40 L/min). During ECC, PRAM estimates of flow also closely correlated with simultaneous pump readings (mean difference 0.11 +/- 0.33 L/min). At time of weaning from ECC, two patterns of hemodynamic adaptation were documented by PRAM following resumption of cardiac contraction: in most patients (n =26; 80%), cardiac output (CO) was stable (reduction < or = 10% compared to the steady ECC phase); six patients (20%) showed a fall in CO exceeding 10% and up to 38%. CONCLUSIONS: PRAM provided accurate, continuous quantification of peripheral blood flow during each phase of cardiac surgery, including ECC, and allowed early recognition of patients with low CO during weaning from the pump.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Romano et al. (2006) conducted an observational in elective coronary surgery (n=32). Pressure recording analytical method (PRAM) vs. Thermodilution and roller-pump device was evaluated on Peripheral blood flow during extracorporeal circulation (MD 0.11). The pressure recording analytical method (PRAM) accurately quantified peripheral blood flow during extracorporeal circulation compared to pump readings (mean difference 0.11 +/- 0.33 L/min).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: