北京大学医学部机构知识库
Advanced  
IR@PKUHSC  > 北京大学第一临床医学院  > 期刊论文
学科主题: 临床医学
题名:
Five algorithms that calculate cardiac output from the arterial waveform: a comparison with Doppler ultrasound
作者: Zhang, J.1; Critchley, L. A. H.2; Huang, L.3
关键词: cardiac output ; doppler ; pulse wave analysis
刊名: BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
发表日期: 2015-09-01
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aev254
卷: 115, 期:3, 页:392-402
收录类别: SCI
文章类型: Article
WOS标题词: Science & Technology
类目[WOS]: Anesthesiology
研究领域[WOS]: Anesthesiology
关键词[WOS]: ESOPHAGEAL DOPPLER ; SURGERY ; MONITORS ; AGREEMENT ; ABILITY ; FLOTRAC ; IMPACT ; TRIAL
英文摘要:

Background: Different mathematical approaches are used to calculate arterial pulse pressure wave analysis (PPWA) cardiac output. The CardioQ-Combi is a research oesophageal Doppler (COODM) monitor that includes these five fundamental PPWA algorithms. We compared these PPWA cardiac output readings to COODM and suprasternal USCOM Doppler (COUS) over a range of cardiac output values induced by dopamine infusion in patients undergoing major surgery. USCOM acted as a control.

Methods: Serial sets of cardiac output data were recorded at regular intervals as cardiac output increased. Formulae included: cardiac output calculated form systemic vascular resistance (COMAP), pulse pressure (COPP), Liljestrand-Zander formula (COLZ), alternating current power (COAC) and systolic area with Kouchoukos correction (COSA). The reference method for comparisons was COODM. Statistical methods included: Scatter plots (correlation), Bland-Altman (agreement) and concordance (trending) and polar (trending).

Results: From 20 patients 255 sets of cardiac output comparative data were collected. Mean cardiac output for each method ranged between 5.0 and 5.5 litre min(-1). For comparisons between COUS and the five PPWA algorithms with COODM: Correlation was best with COUS (R-2=0.81) followed by COLZ (R-2=0.72). Bias ranged between 0.1 and 0.5 litre min(-1). Percentage error was lowest with COUS (26.4%) followed by COLZ (35.2%), others (40.7 to 56.3%). Concordance was best with COUS (92%), followed by COLZ (71%), others (64 to 66%). Polar analysis (mean(standard deviation)) were best with COUS (-2.7 (21.1)), followed by COLZ (+4.7 (26.6).

Conclusions: The Liljestrand-Zander PPWA formula was most reliable compared with oesophageal Doppler in major surgical patients under general anaesthesia, but not better than USCOM.

语种: 英语
WOS记录号: WOS:000361191400012
Citation statistics:
内容类型: 期刊论文
URI标识: http://ir.bjmu.edu.cn/handle/400002259/56264
Appears in Collections:北京大学第一临床医学院_期刊论文

Files in This Item:

There are no files associated with this item.


作者单位: 1.Zhengzhou Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Anesthesiol, Zhengzhou 450052, Peoples R China
2.Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Prince Wales Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia & Intens Care, Shatin, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
3.Peking Univ, Hosp 1, Dept Anesthesia & Surg Intens Care, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China

Recommended Citation:
Zhang, J.,Critchley, L. A. H.,Huang, L.. Five algorithms that calculate cardiac output from the arterial waveform: a comparison with Doppler ultrasound[J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA,2015,115(3):392-402.
Service
Recommend this item
Sava as my favorate item
Show this item's statistics
Export Endnote File
Google Scholar
Similar articles in Google Scholar
[Zhang, J.]'s Articles
[Critchley, L. A. H.]'s Articles
[Huang, L.]'s Articles
CSDL cross search
Similar articles in CSDL Cross Search
[Zhang, J.]‘s Articles
[Critchley, L. A. H.]‘s Articles
[Huang, L.]‘s Articles
Related Copyright Policies
Null
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit
所有评论 (0)
暂无评论
 
评注功能仅针对注册用户开放,请您登录
您对该条目有什么异议,请填写以下表单,管理员会尽快联系您。
内 容:
Email:  *
单位:
验证码:   刷新
您在IR的使用过程中有什么好的想法或者建议可以反馈给我们。
标 题:
 *
内 容:
Email:  *
验证码:   刷新

Items in IR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

 

Valid XHTML 1.0!
Copyright © 2007-2017  北京大学医学部 - Feedback
Powered by CSpace