应用生物阻抗技术评价肝移植患者心输出量

Po-Yuan Shih, Wen-Ying Lin, Ming-Hui Hung, Ya-Jung Cheng, Kuang-Cheng Chan
{"title":"应用生物阻抗技术评价肝移植患者心输出量","authors":"Po-Yuan Shih,&nbsp;Wen-Ying Lin,&nbsp;Ming-Hui Hung,&nbsp;Ya-Jung Cheng,&nbsp;Kuang-Cheng Chan","doi":"10.1016/j.aat.2016.06.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>This study compared the cardiac output (CO) obtained from PiCCO with that obtained from the noninvasive NICOM method.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Twenty-one cirrhotic patients receiving liver transplantation were enrolled. During the operation, their CO was measured by the PiCCO system via the thermodilution method as the standard and by the NICOM method. Two parameters including cardiac index (CI) and stroke volume index (SVI) were collected simultaneously at three phases during the surgery including the dissection phase (T1), the anhepatic phase (T2), and the reperfusion phase (T3). Correlation, Bland and Altman methods, and linear mixed model were used to evaluate the monitoring ability of both systems.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Poor correlation was noted between the data measured by NICOM and PiCCO; the correlation coefficients for CI and SVI measured between the two systems were 0.32 and 0.39, respectively. Bland and Altman analysis showed the percentage error of CI as 63.7%, and that of SVI as 66.6% for NICOM compared to PiCCO. Using the linear mixed model, the CI and SVI measured using NICOM were significantly higher than those using PiCCO (estimated regression coefficient 0.92 and 10.77, both <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Mixed model analysis showed no differences between the trends of CI and SVI measured by the two methods.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>NICOM provided a comparable CI and SVI trend when compared to the gold standard PiCCO, but it raises concerns as an effective CO monitor because of its tendency to overestimate CI and SVI especially during the state of high cardiac output.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":87042,"journal":{"name":"Acta anaesthesiologica Taiwanica : official journal of the Taiwan Society of Anesthesiologists","volume":"54 2","pages":"Pages 57-61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.aat.2016.06.001","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of cardiac output by bioreactance technique in patients undergoing liver transplantation\",\"authors\":\"Po-Yuan Shih,&nbsp;Wen-Ying Lin,&nbsp;Ming-Hui Hung,&nbsp;Ya-Jung Cheng,&nbsp;Kuang-Cheng Chan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.aat.2016.06.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>This study compared the cardiac output (CO) obtained from PiCCO with that obtained from the noninvasive NICOM method.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Twenty-one cirrhotic patients receiving liver transplantation were enrolled. During the operation, their CO was measured by the PiCCO system via the thermodilution method as the standard and by the NICOM method. Two parameters including cardiac index (CI) and stroke volume index (SVI) were collected simultaneously at three phases during the surgery including the dissection phase (T1), the anhepatic phase (T2), and the reperfusion phase (T3). Correlation, Bland and Altman methods, and linear mixed model were used to evaluate the monitoring ability of both systems.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Poor correlation was noted between the data measured by NICOM and PiCCO; the correlation coefficients for CI and SVI measured between the two systems were 0.32 and 0.39, respectively. Bland and Altman analysis showed the percentage error of CI as 63.7%, and that of SVI as 66.6% for NICOM compared to PiCCO. Using the linear mixed model, the CI and SVI measured using NICOM were significantly higher than those using PiCCO (estimated regression coefficient 0.92 and 10.77, both <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Mixed model analysis showed no differences between the trends of CI and SVI measured by the two methods.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>NICOM provided a comparable CI and SVI trend when compared to the gold standard PiCCO, but it raises concerns as an effective CO monitor because of its tendency to overestimate CI and SVI especially during the state of high cardiac output.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87042,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta anaesthesiologica Taiwanica : official journal of the Taiwan Society of Anesthesiologists\",\"volume\":\"54 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 57-61\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.aat.2016.06.001\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta anaesthesiologica Taiwanica : official journal of the Taiwan Society of Anesthesiologists\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875459716300509\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta anaesthesiologica Taiwanica : official journal of the Taiwan Society of Anesthesiologists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875459716300509","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本研究比较了PiCCO和NICOM法获得的心输出量(CO)。方法选取21例接受肝移植的肝硬化患者。在操作过程中,采用PiCCO系统以热稀释法为标准,NICOM法进行CO测量。在手术中解剖期(T1)、无肝期(T2)和再灌注期(T3)三个阶段同时采集心脏指数(CI)和脑卒中容积指数(SVI)两项参数。采用相关法、Bland和Altman法和线性混合模型对两个系统的监测能力进行评价。结果NICOM与PiCCO测量数据无相关性;两系统间CI和SVI的相关系数分别为0.32和0.39。Bland和Altman分析显示,NICOM与PiCCO相比,CI的误差百分比为63.7%,SVI的误差百分比为66.6%。使用线性混合模型,NICOM测量的CI和SVI显著高于PiCCO(估计回归系数0.92和10.77,均p <0.001)。混合模型分析表明,两种方法测量的CI和SVI趋势无差异。结论与金标准PiCCO相比,snicom提供了相当的CI和SVI趋势,但由于其倾向于高估CI和SVI,特别是在高心排血量状态下,因此引起了对有效CO监测的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of cardiac output by bioreactance technique in patients undergoing liver transplantation

Background

This study compared the cardiac output (CO) obtained from PiCCO with that obtained from the noninvasive NICOM method.

Methods

Twenty-one cirrhotic patients receiving liver transplantation were enrolled. During the operation, their CO was measured by the PiCCO system via the thermodilution method as the standard and by the NICOM method. Two parameters including cardiac index (CI) and stroke volume index (SVI) were collected simultaneously at three phases during the surgery including the dissection phase (T1), the anhepatic phase (T2), and the reperfusion phase (T3). Correlation, Bland and Altman methods, and linear mixed model were used to evaluate the monitoring ability of both systems.

Results

Poor correlation was noted between the data measured by NICOM and PiCCO; the correlation coefficients for CI and SVI measured between the two systems were 0.32 and 0.39, respectively. Bland and Altman analysis showed the percentage error of CI as 63.7%, and that of SVI as 66.6% for NICOM compared to PiCCO. Using the linear mixed model, the CI and SVI measured using NICOM were significantly higher than those using PiCCO (estimated regression coefficient 0.92 and 10.77, both p < 0.001). Mixed model analysis showed no differences between the trends of CI and SVI measured by the two methods.

Conclusions

NICOM provided a comparable CI and SVI trend when compared to the gold standard PiCCO, but it raises concerns as an effective CO monitor because of its tendency to overestimate CI and SVI especially during the state of high cardiac output.

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