| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |



* From the Clinica di Anestesia, University of Udine, Udine;
and the Departments of Anesthesia, University of Rome "Tor Vergata",
and the University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy.
Address correspondence to: Dr. Giorgio Della Rocca, C.so Trieste 169/A, 00198 Rome, Italy. Phone: +39-3281-675649; Fax: +39-0432-545526; E-mail: giorgio.dellarocca{at}dsc.uniud.it
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Methods: Measurements were obtained in 58 patients: at four time points in patients undergoing single-lung transplantation and at six time points in those undergoing double-lung transplantation. Bland and Altman and correlation analyses were used for statistical evaluation.
Results: We found close agreement between the techniques. Mean bias between Aorta intermittent and PA intermittent and between Aorta continuous and PA continuous was 0.18 Lmin-1 (2SD of differences between methods = 1.59 Lmin-1) and -0.07 Lmin-1 (2SD of differences between methods = 1.46 Lmin-1) respectively. Mean bias between PA continuous and PA intermittent and Aorta continuous and PA intermittent was 0.15 Lmin-1 (2SD of differences between methods = 1.39 Lmin-1) and 0.08 Lmin-1 (2SD of differences between methods = 1.43 Lmin-1).
Conclusion: Measurements with the aortic transpulmonary thermodilution technique give continuous and intermittent values that agree with the pulmonary thermodilution method which is still the current clinical standard.
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We compared the intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution indicator method (Aorta intermittent) and two methods of continuous measurement (pulse contour analysis = Aorta continuous, and continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution = PA continuous) to the current clinical standard: intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution (PA intermittent) in patients undergoing lung transplantation.
| Material and methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A modified 7.5-Fr gauge PAC for SvO2 and CCO was inserted via an introducer (8.5-Fr Baxter Edwards Laboratories, Irvine, CA, USA) into the right internal jugular vein and connected to the Vigilance system (Baxter Edwards Laboratories, Irvine, CA, USA) for PA intermittent and PA continuous monitoring. A single operator obtained three consecutive measurements over a two-minute period without regard to the phase of the respiratory cycle.1
After the achievement of stable cardiovascular conditions, calibration of the pulse contour analysis system was done. During SLT and DLT, Intermittent CO measurements were obtained:
Before incision: after induction of anesthesia; Lung 1: during implantation of the first lung; Rep 1: after reperfusion of the first lung; Final: at the end of surgery; and only in DLT: Lung 2: during implantation of the second lung; Rep 2: after reperfusion of the second lung.
All results are expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD) unless indicated otherwise.
Statistical analysis used the method described by Bland and Altman.2 The upper and the lower limits of agreement were calculated as bias (2SD), and defined the range in which 95% confidence interval (CI) of the differences between the methods were expected to lie.
Delta (
) in CO were calculated by subtracting the first from the second measurement (
1 = Lung 1-Before incision), the second from the third (
2), and so on (
3,
4, and
5) and were analyzed using linear regression. We measured the bias between techniques in measuring those differences in CO.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
1) in PA intermittent, vs Aorta intermittent, Aorta continuous and PA continuous are reported in Figure 2
|
2,
3,
4, and
5 between the techniques vs PA intermittent were, respectively for (a) Aorta intermittent vs PA intermittent, (b) PA intermittent vs PA continuous, (c) PA intermittent vs Aorta continuous:
2: a: y = 0.845 x +0.2555 r2 = 0.74, P < 0.0001); b: y = 0.7838 x +0.2935 r2 = 0.79, P < 0.0001); c: y = 0.869 x +0.05568 r2 = 0.76, P < 0.0001).
3: a: y = 0.7803 x -0.6214 r2 = 0.79, P < 0.0001); b: y = 0.8039 x -0.1866 r2 = 0.85, P < 0.0001); c: y = 0.8381 x -0.3396 r2 = 0.81, P < 0.0001);
4: a: y = 0.7284 x; +0.1171 r2 = 0.62, P < 0.0001); b: y = 0.925 x -0.2409 r2 = 0.75, P < 0.0001); c: y = 0.8564 x +0.07373 r2 = 0.78, P < 0.0001);
5: a: (y = 0.7763 x +0.1443 r2 = 0.68, P < 0.0001); b: (y = 0.9105 x +0.2979 r2 = 0.78, P < 0.0001); c: (y = 0.8556 x +0.177 r2 = 0.79, P < 0.0001).
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The analysis of studies comparing different methods is cumbersome when the accuracy and precision of the reference method is uncertain, because of the inability to discriminate between errors induced by the technique under investigation and errors related to the reference method. Our results indicate that the transpulmonary thermodilution technique and the pulmonary artery thermodilution method can be used interchangeably, even if the validation of methods prior to their use as references is advisable to define and exclude technical and operator induced measurement errors.
Few studies so far evaluated the performance of the PiCCO system for both continuous and bolus thermodilution as compared to a third technique.1,36 In the population studied, no clinically relevant disagreement between techniques was observed for the majority of measurements. We analyzed the data as bias and 2SD. Clinicians can expect Aorta intermittent measurements to be within approximately ± 1.5 Lmin-1 or less of PA intermittent 95% of the time in these particular clinical conditions.
In conclusion, we confirm that Aorta intermittent, Aorta Continuous and PA continuous measurements agree with the current clinical standard PA intermittent CO measurement. Continuous CO can be monitored either by pulse contour analysis or by PAC in patients during lung transplant surgery.
Received for publication April 22, 2002.
Revision received March 4, 2003. Revision received May 2, 2003.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurements. Lancet 1986; 1: 30710.[Medline]
3 Gödje O, Thiel C, Lamm P, et al. Less invasive, continuous hemodynamic monitoring during minimally invasive coronary surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 68: 15326.
4 Rödig G, Prasser C, Keyl C, Liebold A, Hobbhahn J. Continuous cardiac output measurement: pulse contour analysis vs thermodilution technique in cardiac surgical patients. Br J Anaesth 1999; 82: 52530.
5 Gödje O, Höeke K, Lichtwarck-Aschoff M, Faltchauser A, Lamm P, Reichart B. Continuous cardiac output by femoral arterial thermodilution calibrated pulse contour analysis: comparison with pulmonary arterial thermodilution. Crit Care Med 1999; 27: 240712.[Medline]
6 Burhe W, Weyland A, Kazmaier S, et al. Comparison of cardiac output by pulse-contour analysis and thermodilution in patients undergoing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 1999; 13: 43740.[Medline]
7 Böttiger BW. Continuous cardiac output monitoringfurther applications of the thermodilution principle. Intensive Care Med 1999; 25: 1313.[Medline]
8 Schmid ER, Schmidlin D, Tornic M, Seifert B. Continuous thermodilution cardiac output: clinical validation against a reference technique of known accuracy. Intensive Care Med 1999; 25: 16672.[Medline]
9 Aranda M, Mihm FG, Garrett S, Mihm MN, Pearl RG. Continuous cardiac output catheters. Delay in in vitro response time after controlled flow changes. Anesthesiology 1998; 89: 15925.[Medline]
10 Lefrant JY, Bruelle P, Ripart J, et al. Cardiac output measurement in critically ill patients: comparison of continuous and conventional thermodilution techniques. Report of investigation. Can J Anaesth 1995; 42: 9726.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
D. Button, L. Weibel, O. Reuthebuch, M. Genoni, A. Zollinger, and C. K. Hofer Clinical evaluation of the FloTrac/VigileoTM system and two established continuous cardiac output monitoring devices in patients undergoing cardiac surgery Br. J. Anaesth., September 1, 2007; 99(3): 329 - 336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. Isakow and D. P. Schuster Extravascular lung water measurements and hemodynamic monitoring in the critically ill: bedside alternatives to the pulmonary artery catheter Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol, December 1, 2006; 291(6): L1118 - L1131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y.-J. Cheng, K.-C. Chan, C.-T. Chien, W.-Z. Sun, and C.-J. Lin Oxidative stress during 1-lung ventilation. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2006; 132(3): 513 - 518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |