Key result
RVEDV outperforms PAOP for predicting cardiac output measured by thermodilution and Fick methods.
Why the study?
The clinical impact of mathematical coupling on the relationship between right ventricular end-diastolic volume and cardiac output in trauma patients was uncertain.
Does RVEDV better predict cardiac output than PAOP in trauma patients?
Population
53 consecutive trauma patients admitted to a Level I trauma center between 10/1/94 and 6/1/95
Comparison
Right ventricular end-diastolic volume vs pulmonary artery occlusion pressure for preload assessment
Design
Prospective observational study
Authors
Loading...
RVEDV may better indicate preload than PAOP in shock; leaves open whether volumetric catheters improve outcomes versus standard monitoring.
Observational (n=53)
No
Does RVEDV better predict cardiac output than PAOP in trauma patients?
Effect estimate: r=0.48 vs r=0.45
p-value: p=0.76
RVEDV is a significantly better predictor of cardiac output than PAOP in trauma patients, and this relationship is not driven by mathematical coupling.
Chang et al. (1996) conducted an observational in Trauma (n=53). Right ventricular end-diastolic volume (RVEDV) vs. Pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) was evaluated on Correlation of RVEDV with cardiac output measured by thermodilution (COTH) compared with Fick principle (COFICK) (r=0.48 vs r=0.45, p=0.76). Right ventricular end-diastolic volume was significantly better than pulmonary artery occlusion pressure at predicting cardiac output measured by thermodilution (p<0.001) and Fick principle (p=0.04).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: