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

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