是时候让 Fick 平静下来了吗?三尖瓣反流中热稀释法与直接菲克法相比较的系统回顾和元分析

IF 2.5 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
{"title":"是时候让 Fick 平静下来了吗?三尖瓣反流中热稀释法与直接菲克法相比较的系统回顾和元分析","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cjco.2024.05.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Many clinicians consider thermodilution (TD) as a means to measure cardiac output (CO) to be unreliable in patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR). No systematic appraisals of this clinical issue have been conducted. We hypothesized that the level of inaccuracy of using TD in patients with TR, compared to the direct Fick (DF) method, to determine CO, is overstated.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We performed a systematic search of 6 major literature databases for the period from 1946 to July 2023. Studies were included if they included CO measurements determined with both TD and the DF method in patients with vs without TR. Meta-analysis of the correlation between the measurements determined by TD vs the DF method was performed, stratified by the presence of TR.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 1064 studies were identified, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria. Four of the studies were included in the pooled analysis. The presence of TR did not affect the correlation between CO measurements determined by TD vs the DF method (moderate-to-severe TR: <em>r</em> = 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.76, 0.96; mild or no TR, <em>r</em> = 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.71, 0.93). Many studies had high levels of heterogeneity and risk of bias.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The accuracy of CO measurements made using TD, compared to the gold-standard DF method, may not be meaningfully affected by the presence of moderate-to-severe TR. Given the high levels of heterogeneity and risk of bias of the included studies, these findings should be replicated in a modern cohort.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36924,"journal":{"name":"CJC Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X24002191/pdfft?md5=6f931b75f8dde0578b1551625196e48d&pid=1-s2.0-S2589790X24002191-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Time to Calm the Fick Down? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Thermodilution Compared to Direct Fick in Tricuspid Regurgitation\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cjco.2024.05.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Many clinicians consider thermodilution (TD) as a means to measure cardiac output (CO) to be unreliable in patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR). No systematic appraisals of this clinical issue have been conducted. We hypothesized that the level of inaccuracy of using TD in patients with TR, compared to the direct Fick (DF) method, to determine CO, is overstated.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We performed a systematic search of 6 major literature databases for the period from 1946 to July 2023. Studies were included if they included CO measurements determined with both TD and the DF method in patients with vs without TR. Meta-analysis of the correlation between the measurements determined by TD vs the DF method was performed, stratified by the presence of TR.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 1064 studies were identified, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria. Four of the studies were included in the pooled analysis. The presence of TR did not affect the correlation between CO measurements determined by TD vs the DF method (moderate-to-severe TR: <em>r</em> = 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.76, 0.96; mild or no TR, <em>r</em> = 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.71, 0.93). Many studies had high levels of heterogeneity and risk of bias.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The accuracy of CO measurements made using TD, compared to the gold-standard DF method, may not be meaningfully affected by the presence of moderate-to-severe TR. Given the high levels of heterogeneity and risk of bias of the included studies, these findings should be replicated in a modern cohort.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36924,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CJC Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X24002191/pdfft?md5=6f931b75f8dde0578b1551625196e48d&pid=1-s2.0-S2589790X24002191-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CJC Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X24002191\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJC Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X24002191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景许多临床医生认为热稀释(TD)作为一种测量三尖瓣反流(TR)患者心输出量(CO)的方法并不可靠。目前尚未对这一临床问题进行系统评估。我们假设,与直接菲克(DF)法相比,在 TR 患者中使用 TD 测定 CO 的不准确程度被夸大了。方法我们对 1946 年至 2023 年 7 月期间的 6 个主要文献数据库进行了系统检索。如果研究纳入了同时使用 TD 和 DF 方法测定的 CO 测量值,且研究对象为有 TR 和无 TR 的患者,则纳入研究。根据是否存在 TR,对 TD 与 DF 方法测定值之间的相关性进行了 Meta 分析。结果共发现 1064 项研究,其中 8 项符合纳入标准。其中四项研究被纳入汇总分析。TR的存在并不影响TD法与DF法测定的CO测量值之间的相关性(中度至重度TR:r = 0.90,95%置信区间为0.76,0.96;轻度或无TR,r = 0.86,95%置信区间为0.71,0.93)。结论与黄金标准的 DF 方法相比,使用 TD 测量 CO 的准确性可能不会受到中重度 TR 的影响。考虑到所纳入研究的高度异质性和偏倚风险,这些研究结果应在现代队列中重复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Time to Calm the Fick Down? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Thermodilution Compared to Direct Fick in Tricuspid Regurgitation

Background

Many clinicians consider thermodilution (TD) as a means to measure cardiac output (CO) to be unreliable in patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR). No systematic appraisals of this clinical issue have been conducted. We hypothesized that the level of inaccuracy of using TD in patients with TR, compared to the direct Fick (DF) method, to determine CO, is overstated.

Methods

We performed a systematic search of 6 major literature databases for the period from 1946 to July 2023. Studies were included if they included CO measurements determined with both TD and the DF method in patients with vs without TR. Meta-analysis of the correlation between the measurements determined by TD vs the DF method was performed, stratified by the presence of TR.

Results

A total of 1064 studies were identified, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria. Four of the studies were included in the pooled analysis. The presence of TR did not affect the correlation between CO measurements determined by TD vs the DF method (moderate-to-severe TR: r = 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.76, 0.96; mild or no TR, r = 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.71, 0.93). Many studies had high levels of heterogeneity and risk of bias.

Conclusions

The accuracy of CO measurements made using TD, compared to the gold-standard DF method, may not be meaningfully affected by the presence of moderate-to-severe TR. Given the high levels of heterogeneity and risk of bias of the included studies, these findings should be replicated in a modern cohort.

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
CJC Open
CJC Open Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
143
审稿时长
60 days
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信