Shady Rady Abdalla, Ahmed Salah Abdelazeem, Tarek Abdelhalium Kaddah, Abla Salah Elhadedy, Hanan Farouk Khafagy, Ahmed Abdalla Mohamed, Ahmed Mohamed Essam
{"title":"腹部大手术患者的血流动力学监测及心电测量与食管多普勒的相关性","authors":"Shady Rady Abdalla, Ahmed Salah Abdelazeem, Tarek Abdelhalium Kaddah, Abla Salah Elhadedy, Hanan Farouk Khafagy, Ahmed Abdalla Mohamed, Ahmed Mohamed Essam","doi":"10.1080/11101849.2023.2209415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Transesophageal Doppler (TED) is a minimally invasive monitor that allows continuous hemodynamic variables monitoring. Non-invasive electrical cardiometry (EC) and TED methods added an additional facility to monitor cardiac output (CO) continuously and guide fluid management. The aim of this study was to correlate hemodynamic monitoring between non-invasive EC and Esophageal Doppler (ED) in cases undergoing major abdominal surgery.Methods This prospective observational study was carried out on 35 adult cases, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II or III, undergoing major abdominal surgery. Esophageal Doppler and EC were attached to the same patient. Parameters measured were hemodynamic parameters.Results Comparison of CO with ICON and ED showed that the ICON mean value ranged from 5.6 to 6.2 l/min, and the ED mean value always ranged from 5.7 to 7.6 l/min with the non-significant difference between the two methods. The precision for the ICON ranged from 15.19 to 17.99% and the precision for ED ranged from 13.39 to 17.08%. At a 15% change in ICON, the ED values’ sensitivity was 72.6% and specificity was 30.9% with AUC 0.505.Conclusion The agreement between CO measured by EC and ED is acceptable. Both monitored trend changes and guided fluid administration in the operation theater. The EC is as accurate as ED in measuring hemodynamics during major abdominal surgery.","PeriodicalId":11437,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":"122 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hemodynamic monitoring and correlation between electrical cardiometry and esophageal Doppler in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery\",\"authors\":\"Shady Rady Abdalla, Ahmed Salah Abdelazeem, Tarek Abdelhalium Kaddah, Abla Salah Elhadedy, Hanan Farouk Khafagy, Ahmed Abdalla Mohamed, Ahmed Mohamed Essam\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/11101849.2023.2209415\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Transesophageal Doppler (TED) is a minimally invasive monitor that allows continuous hemodynamic variables monitoring. Non-invasive electrical cardiometry (EC) and TED methods added an additional facility to monitor cardiac output (CO) continuously and guide fluid management. The aim of this study was to correlate hemodynamic monitoring between non-invasive EC and Esophageal Doppler (ED) in cases undergoing major abdominal surgery.Methods This prospective observational study was carried out on 35 adult cases, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II or III, undergoing major abdominal surgery. Esophageal Doppler and EC were attached to the same patient. Parameters measured were hemodynamic parameters.Results Comparison of CO with ICON and ED showed that the ICON mean value ranged from 5.6 to 6.2 l/min, and the ED mean value always ranged from 5.7 to 7.6 l/min with the non-significant difference between the two methods. The precision for the ICON ranged from 15.19 to 17.99% and the precision for ED ranged from 13.39 to 17.08%. At a 15% change in ICON, the ED values’ sensitivity was 72.6% and specificity was 30.9% with AUC 0.505.Conclusion The agreement between CO measured by EC and ED is acceptable. Both monitored trend changes and guided fluid administration in the operation theater. The EC is as accurate as ED in measuring hemodynamics during major abdominal surgery.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":\"122 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2023.2209415\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2023.2209415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Hemodynamic monitoring and correlation between electrical cardiometry and esophageal Doppler in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery
Background Transesophageal Doppler (TED) is a minimally invasive monitor that allows continuous hemodynamic variables monitoring. Non-invasive electrical cardiometry (EC) and TED methods added an additional facility to monitor cardiac output (CO) continuously and guide fluid management. The aim of this study was to correlate hemodynamic monitoring between non-invasive EC and Esophageal Doppler (ED) in cases undergoing major abdominal surgery.Methods This prospective observational study was carried out on 35 adult cases, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II or III, undergoing major abdominal surgery. Esophageal Doppler and EC were attached to the same patient. Parameters measured were hemodynamic parameters.Results Comparison of CO with ICON and ED showed that the ICON mean value ranged from 5.6 to 6.2 l/min, and the ED mean value always ranged from 5.7 to 7.6 l/min with the non-significant difference between the two methods. The precision for the ICON ranged from 15.19 to 17.99% and the precision for ED ranged from 13.39 to 17.08%. At a 15% change in ICON, the ED values’ sensitivity was 72.6% and specificity was 30.9% with AUC 0.505.Conclusion The agreement between CO measured by EC and ED is acceptable. Both monitored trend changes and guided fluid administration in the operation theater. The EC is as accurate as ED in measuring hemodynamics during major abdominal surgery.