IR@PKUHSC  > 北京大学第一临床医学院
学科主题临床医学
Five algorithms that calculate cardiac output from the arterial waveform: a comparison with Doppler ultrasound
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
2015-09-01
DOI10.1093/bja/aev254
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
引用统计
被引频次:5[WOS]   [WOS记录]     [WOS相关记录]
文献类型期刊论文
条目标识符http://ir.bjmu.edu.cn/handle/400002259/56264
专题北京大学第一临床医学院
北京大学第二临床医学院_药剂科
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
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714
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.
APA Zhang, J.,Critchley, L. A. H.,&Huang, L..(2015).Five algorithms that calculate cardiac output from the arterial waveform: a comparison with Doppler ultrasound.BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA,115(3),392-402.
MLA Zhang, J.,et al."Five algorithms that calculate cardiac output from the arterial waveform: a comparison with Doppler ultrasound".BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA 115.3(2015):392-402.
条目包含的文件
条目无相关文件。
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
查看访问统计
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[Zhang, J.]的文章
[Critchley, L. A. H.]的文章
[Huang, L.]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[Zhang, J.]的文章
[Critchley, L. A. H.]的文章
[Huang, L.]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[Zhang, J.]的文章
[Critchley, L. A. H.]的文章
[Huang, L.]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享
所有评论 (0)
暂无评论
 

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。