负荷后评估有无中心静脉压:初步临床比较。

Glen Atlas, Jay Berger, Sunil Dhar
{"title":"负荷后评估有无中心静脉压:初步临床比较。","authors":"Glen Atlas,&nbsp;Jay Berger,&nbsp;Sunil Dhar","doi":"10.1007/s10558-010-9113-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A clinical comparison, of two methods of afterload assessment, has been made. The first method, systemic vascular resistance index (SVR(i)), is based upon the traditional formula for afterload which utilizes central venous pressure (CVP), as well as cardiac index (C(i)), and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP). The second method, total systemic vascular resistance index (TSVR(i)), also uses MAP and C(i). However, TSVR(i) ignores the contribution of CVP. This preliminary examination, of 10 randomly-selected ICU patients, has shown a high degree of correlation (ranging from 90 to 100%) between SVR(i) and TSVR(i) (P < 0.0001). Furthermore, there was also a high degree of correlation (ranging from 94 to 100%) noted between the hour-to-hour change in SVR(i) with the hour-to-hour change in TSVR(i) (P < 0.0001). The results, of this pilot study, support the premise that the use of CVP may not always be necessary for afterload evaluation in the clinical setting. Minimally-invasive means of measuring both C(i) and MAP, without CVP, may be adequate for use in assessing afterload.</p>","PeriodicalId":55275,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Engineering (dordrecht, Netherlands)","volume":"10 4","pages":"246-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10558-010-9113-0","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Afterload assessment with or without central venous pressure: a preliminary clinical comparison.\",\"authors\":\"Glen Atlas,&nbsp;Jay Berger,&nbsp;Sunil Dhar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10558-010-9113-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A clinical comparison, of two methods of afterload assessment, has been made. The first method, systemic vascular resistance index (SVR(i)), is based upon the traditional formula for afterload which utilizes central venous pressure (CVP), as well as cardiac index (C(i)), and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP). The second method, total systemic vascular resistance index (TSVR(i)), also uses MAP and C(i). However, TSVR(i) ignores the contribution of CVP. This preliminary examination, of 10 randomly-selected ICU patients, has shown a high degree of correlation (ranging from 90 to 100%) between SVR(i) and TSVR(i) (P < 0.0001). Furthermore, there was also a high degree of correlation (ranging from 94 to 100%) noted between the hour-to-hour change in SVR(i) with the hour-to-hour change in TSVR(i) (P < 0.0001). The results, of this pilot study, support the premise that the use of CVP may not always be necessary for afterload evaluation in the clinical setting. Minimally-invasive means of measuring both C(i) and MAP, without CVP, may be adequate for use in assessing afterload.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiovascular Engineering (dordrecht, Netherlands)\",\"volume\":\"10 4\",\"pages\":\"246-52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10558-010-9113-0\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiovascular Engineering (dordrecht, Netherlands)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10558-010-9113-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Engineering (dordrecht, Netherlands)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10558-010-9113-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

对两种后负荷评估方法进行了临床比较。第一种方法,系统血管阻力指数(SVR(i)),是基于传统的后负荷计算公式,利用中心静脉压(CVP)、心脏指数(C(i))和平均动脉压(MAP)。第二种方法是全身血管总阻力指数(TSVR(i)),也使用MAP和C(i)。然而,TSVR(i)忽略了CVP的贡献。这项随机选择的10例ICU患者的初步检查显示,SVR(i)和TSVR(i)之间存在高度相关性(范围从90%到100%)(P < 0.0001)。此外,SVR(i)的逐小时变化与TSVR(i)的逐小时变化之间也存在高度相关性(从94到100%不等)(P < 0.0001)。这项初步研究的结果支持这样一个前提,即在临床环境中,CVP的使用可能并不总是必要的。无CVP的微创方法测量C(i)和MAP可能足以用于评估后负荷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Afterload assessment with or without central venous pressure: a preliminary clinical comparison.

A clinical comparison, of two methods of afterload assessment, has been made. The first method, systemic vascular resistance index (SVR(i)), is based upon the traditional formula for afterload which utilizes central venous pressure (CVP), as well as cardiac index (C(i)), and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP). The second method, total systemic vascular resistance index (TSVR(i)), also uses MAP and C(i). However, TSVR(i) ignores the contribution of CVP. This preliminary examination, of 10 randomly-selected ICU patients, has shown a high degree of correlation (ranging from 90 to 100%) between SVR(i) and TSVR(i) (P < 0.0001). Furthermore, there was also a high degree of correlation (ranging from 94 to 100%) noted between the hour-to-hour change in SVR(i) with the hour-to-hour change in TSVR(i) (P < 0.0001). The results, of this pilot study, support the premise that the use of CVP may not always be necessary for afterload evaluation in the clinical setting. Minimally-invasive means of measuring both C(i) and MAP, without CVP, may be adequate for use in assessing afterload.

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:481959085
Book学术官方微信