Key result
Patient-specific cardiovascular modeling predicts adrenaline hemodynamic response within ~10% error of clinical data.
Why the study?
A validated cardiovascular model was used to study and predict patient-specific hemodynamic responses to different adrenaline doses in healthy and critically ill populations.
Can a mathematical model accurately predict patient-specific hemodynamic responses to adrenaline?
Can a mathematical model accurately predict patient-specific hemodynamic responses to adrenaline?
Effect estimate: <10%
A mathematical model of the cardiovascular system can accurately predict patient-specific hemodynamic responses to adrenaline within a 10% error margin, offering potential for clinical decision support in critical care.
May support model-guided adrenaline dosing in critical care; leaves open prospective validation before clinical use.
A model for the cardiovascular and circulatory systems has previously been validated in simulated cardiac and circulatory disease states. It has also been shown to accurately capture the main hemodynamic trends in porcine models of pulmonary embolism and PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure) titrations at different volemic levels. In this research, the existing model and parameter identification process are used to study the effect of different adrenaline doses in healthy and critically ill patient populations, and to develop a means of predicting the hemodynamic response to adrenaline. The hemodynamic effects on arterial blood pressures and stroke volume (cardiac index) are simulated in the model and adrenaline-specific parameters are identified. The dose dependent changes in these parameters are then related to adrenaline dose using data from studies published in the literature. These relationships are then used to predict the future, patient-specific response to a change in dose or over time periods from 1-12 hours. The results are compared to data from 3 published adrenaline dosing studies comprising a total of 37 data sets. Absolute percentage errors for the identified model are within 10% when re-simulated and compared to clinical data for all cases. All identified parameter trends match clinically expected changes. Absolute percentage errors for the predicted hemodynamic responses (N=15) are also within 10% when re-simulated and compared to clinical data. Clinically accurate prediction of the effect of inotropic circulatory support drugs, such as adrenaline, offers significant potential for this type of model-based application. Overall, this work represents a further clinical, proof of concept, of the underlying fundamental mathematical model, methods and approach, as well as providing a template for using the model in clinical titration of adrenaline in a decision support role in critical care. They are thus a further justification in support of upcoming human clinical trials to validate this model.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
J. Geoffrey Chase (2010) studied Healthy subjects and critically ill patients (post-CABG, septic shock) (n=37). Adrenaline (epinephrine) vs. Baseline or previous dose was evaluated on Absolute percentage error of predicted hemodynamic responses (<10%). A patient-specific cardiovascular system model predicted hemodynamic responses to adrenaline titration with absolute percentage errors within 10% compared to clinical data.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: