CDI 500®和SYSTEM M-M4®在线气体监测分析它们在临床灌注实践中是否具有可比性?

Maria Luz Recio, María Carmen Santos, C. Casado, J. C. Santos
{"title":"CDI 500®和SYSTEM M-M4®在线气体监测分析它们在临床灌注实践中是否具有可比性?","authors":"Maria Luz Recio, María Carmen Santos, C. Casado, J. C. Santos","doi":"10.36579/rep.2019.66.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: to compare the data obtained from the CDI500® and Spectrum M4® to assess the reliability of the results and their impact on cardiopulmonary bypass.\nMethods: a prospective observational study of patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB was conducted between January-2017 and February-2018. The data provided by CDI and M4 was collected. Arterial and venous blood gases taken from Radiometer ABL90 Flex® were used as control. With the first sample, the data of both analyzers were adjusted. A minimum of two samples and a maximum of four were made.\nResults: 100 patients and 292 samples (32% women) with a mean age of 65.2 ± 11.5 years were studied. The parameters of the CDI and M4 practically did not present significant differences after the first adjustment, and without affecting the clinical practice, except in the bicarbonate and the excess of base where CDI does not adjust to the values. The analysis was done with the Bland/Altman charts, the PCO2 and PO2 were better measured by the CDI while Hto, Hb and SvO2 by M4, which was corroborated comparing the error percentages less than ± 5% in both systems, the significant differences being in the five parameters.\nConclusions: both systems provide reliable data, although they require a previous calibration. The M4 allows direct evaluation of data to help a goal directed perfusion.","PeriodicalId":302682,"journal":{"name":"Revista Española de Perfusión","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of online gas monitoring CDI 500® and SYSTEM M-M4®. Are they comparable tools for clinical perfusion practice?\",\"authors\":\"Maria Luz Recio, María Carmen Santos, C. Casado, J. C. Santos\",\"doi\":\"10.36579/rep.2019.66.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: to compare the data obtained from the CDI500® and Spectrum M4® to assess the reliability of the results and their impact on cardiopulmonary bypass.\\nMethods: a prospective observational study of patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB was conducted between January-2017 and February-2018. The data provided by CDI and M4 was collected. Arterial and venous blood gases taken from Radiometer ABL90 Flex® were used as control. With the first sample, the data of both analyzers were adjusted. A minimum of two samples and a maximum of four were made.\\nResults: 100 patients and 292 samples (32% women) with a mean age of 65.2 ± 11.5 years were studied. The parameters of the CDI and M4 practically did not present significant differences after the first adjustment, and without affecting the clinical practice, except in the bicarbonate and the excess of base where CDI does not adjust to the values. The analysis was done with the Bland/Altman charts, the PCO2 and PO2 were better measured by the CDI while Hto, Hb and SvO2 by M4, which was corroborated comparing the error percentages less than ± 5% in both systems, the significant differences being in the five parameters.\\nConclusions: both systems provide reliable data, although they require a previous calibration. The M4 allows direct evaluation of data to help a goal directed perfusion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":302682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Española de Perfusión\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Española de Perfusión\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36579/rep.2019.66.3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Española de Perfusión","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36579/rep.2019.66.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:比较CDI500®和Spectrum M4®的数据,评估结果的可靠性及其对体外循环的影响。方法:对2017年1月至2018年2月期间接受CPB心脏手术的患者进行前瞻性观察研究。收集CDI和M4提供的数据。用Radiometer ABL90 Flex®采集的动脉和静脉血气体作为对照。在第一个样本中,对两个分析仪的数据进行了调整。最少制作两个样品,最多制作四个样品。结果:共纳入100例患者292份样本(女性32%),平均年龄65.2±11.5岁。CDI和M4的参数在第一次调整后几乎没有明显的差异,也不影响临床使用,除了在碳酸氢盐和过量的碱中CDI没有调整到这些值。使用Bland/Altman图进行分析,CDI测量PCO2和PO2较好,M4测量Hto, Hb和SvO2,比较两种系统的误差百分比小于±5%,这证实了5个参数的显著差异。结论:两个系统都提供了可靠的数据,尽管它们需要事先校准。M4允许直接评估数据,以帮助目标定向灌注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analysis of online gas monitoring CDI 500® and SYSTEM M-M4®. Are they comparable tools for clinical perfusion practice?
Objective: to compare the data obtained from the CDI500® and Spectrum M4® to assess the reliability of the results and their impact on cardiopulmonary bypass. Methods: a prospective observational study of patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB was conducted between January-2017 and February-2018. The data provided by CDI and M4 was collected. Arterial and venous blood gases taken from Radiometer ABL90 Flex® were used as control. With the first sample, the data of both analyzers were adjusted. A minimum of two samples and a maximum of four were made. Results: 100 patients and 292 samples (32% women) with a mean age of 65.2 ± 11.5 years were studied. The parameters of the CDI and M4 practically did not present significant differences after the first adjustment, and without affecting the clinical practice, except in the bicarbonate and the excess of base where CDI does not adjust to the values. The analysis was done with the Bland/Altman charts, the PCO2 and PO2 were better measured by the CDI while Hto, Hb and SvO2 by M4, which was corroborated comparing the error percentages less than ± 5% in both systems, the significant differences being in the five parameters. Conclusions: both systems provide reliable data, although they require a previous calibration. The M4 allows direct evaluation of data to help a goal directed perfusion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信