Thumbnail
Access Restriction
Subscribed

Author Tejedor, Ana ♦ Rivas, Eva ♦ Ríos, Jose ♦ Arismendi, Ebymar ♦ Martinez-Palli, Graciela ♦ Delgado, Salvadora ♦ Balust, Jaume
Source World Health Organization (WHO)-Global Index Medicus
Content type Text
Publisher Elsevier
File Format HTM / HTML
Language English
Difficulty Level Medium
Subject Domain (in DDC) Natural sciences & mathematics ♦ Life sciences; biology ♦ Physiology & related subjects ♦ Natural history of organisms ♦ Technology ♦ Medicine & health ♦ Human physiology ♦ Pharmacology and therapeutics ♦ Diseases ♦ Manufacture for specific uses ♦ Precision instruments & other devices
Subject Domain (in MeSH) Eukaryota ♦ Organisms ♦ Nutritional and Metabolic Diseases ♦ Diseases ♦ Diagnosis ♦ Therapeutics ♦ Investigative Techniques ♦ Analytical, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Techniques and Equipment ♦ Musculoskeletal and Neural Physiological Phenomena ♦ Biological Sciences ♦ Persons ♦ Persons
Subject Keyword Discipline Critical Care ♦ Cardiac Output ♦ Catheterization, Swan-ganz ♦ Methods ♦ Obesity, Morbid ♦ Physiopathology ♦ Thermodilution ♦ Bariatric Surgery ♦ Female ♦ Humans ♦ Male ♦ Middle Aged ♦ Monitoring, Intraoperative ♦ Monitoring, Physiologic ♦ Instrumentation ♦ Patient Positioning ♦ Posture ♦ Physiology ♦ Comparative Study ♦ Journal Article
Abstract PURPOSE: Our goal was to assess the accuracy of measuring cardiac output (CO) by the FloTrac/Vigileo (CO(V)) device in comparison with thermodilution technique through pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC(TD)) in morbidly obese patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cardiac output in 8 morbidly obese patients was assessed twice at upright and lying position breathing ambient air. At least 4 consecutive CO measurements with 10 mL of ice-cold saline injections were performed each time. Simultaneous CO measurements were recorded with both single-bolus thermodilution and CO(V). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two CO data pairs were collected. The overall mean single-bolus thermodilution 6.2 ± 1.1 L/min was lower than the overall mean CO(V) 7.8 ± 1.6 L/min (P < .001). Lin concordance coefficient indicated that overall agreement between PAC(TD) and CO(V) was poor, 0.29. Lin concordance coefficient in sitting position was 0.29, 95% confidence interval (0.17-0.40) and in lying position was 0.30, 95% confidence interval (0.15-0.44). The Bland-Altman plot analysis showed systematically higher values from CO(V) in comparison with PAC(TD). These differences increased in presence of high CO measurements. In 3 of 8 patients, the percentage error was lower than 20%, whereas in the other 5, it was higher than 20%. Of these 5, in 2 cases, the percentage error was greater than 50%. CONCLUSION: Data obtained using CO(V) vs PAC(TD) measurements showed poor correlation. The results were not interchangeable.
Description Author Affiliation: Tejedor A ( Anesthesiology Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: ana.tejedor@hotmail.com.); Rivas E ( Anesthesiology Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: erivas@clinic.ub.es.); Ríos J ( Biostatistics and Data Management Core Facility, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain); Arismendi E ( Pneumology Deparment, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: earismen@clinic.ub.es.); Martinez-Palli G ( Anesthesiology Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: gmartin@clinic.ub.es.); Delgado S ( Gastrointestinal Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: sdelgado@clinic.ub.es.); Balust J ( Anesthesiology Department, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: jbalust@clinic.ub.es.)
ISSN 08839441
Educational Role Student ♦ Teacher
Age Range above 22 year
Educational Use Reading ♦ Research ♦ Self Learning
Interactivity Type Expositive
Education Level UG and PG
Learning Resource Type Article
Publisher Date 2015-06-01
Publisher Place United States
e-ISSN 15578615
Journal Journal of Critical Care
Volume Number 30
Issue Number 3


Source: WHO-Global Index Medicus