Comparison of global end-diastolic volume index derived from jugular and femoral indicator injection: a prospective observational study in patients equipped with both a PiCCO-2 and an EV-1000-device.
Cardiac Output
/ physiology
Catheterization
Central Venous Catheters
Female
Femoral Vein
/ physiology
Humans
Indicators and Reagents
Injections
Jugular Veins
/ physiology
Lung Volume Measurements
/ instrumentation
Male
Middle Aged
Monitoring, Physiologic
/ instrumentation
Prospective Studies
Thermodilution
/ instrumentation
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 11 2020
27 11 2020
Historique:
received:
19
09
2019
accepted:
28
02
2020
entrez:
28
11
2020
pubmed:
29
11
2020
medline:
10
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD)-derived global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) is a static marker of preload which better predicted volume responsiveness compared to filling pressures in several studies. GEDVI can be generated with at least two devices: PiCCO and EV-1000. Several studies showed that uncorrected indicator injection into a femoral central venous catheter (CVC) results in a significant overestimation of GEDVI by the PiCCO-device. Therefore, the most recent PiCCO-algorithm corrects for femoral indicator injection. However, there are no systematic data on the impact of femoral indicator injection for the EV-1000 device. Furthermore, the correction algorithm of the PiCCO is poorly validated. Therefore, we prospectively analyzed 14 datasets from 10 patients with TPTD-monitoring undergoing central venous catheter (CVC)- and arterial line exchange. PiCCO was replaced by EV-1000, femoral CVCs were replaced by jugular/subclavian CVCs and vice-versa. For PiCCO, jugular and femoral indicator injection derived GEDVI was comparable when the correct information about femoral catheter site was given (p = 0.251). By contrast, GEDVI derived from femoral indicator injection using the EV-1000 was obviously not corrected and was substantially higher than jugular GEDVI measured by the EV-1000 (846 ± 250 vs. 712 ± 227 ml/m
Identifiants
pubmed: 33247165
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76286-w
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-76286-w
pmc: PMC7695713
doi:
Substances chimiques
Indicators and Reagents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20773Références
Crit Care Med. 2004 Sep;32(9):1981
pubmed: 15343044
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2015 Jan 1;118(1):1-10
pubmed: 25359719
Crit Care. 2010;14(3):R95
pubmed: 20500825
Crit Care Med. 2005 Jan;33(1):13-20; discussion 234-5
pubmed: 15644643
Ann Card Anaesth. 2016 Oct-Dec;19(4):699-704
pubmed: 27716702
Intensive Care Med. 2007 Jan;33(1):96-103
pubmed: 17119923
Intensive Care Med. 2008 Jun;34(6):1038-45
pubmed: 18317732
J Clin Monit Comput. 2017 Jun;31(3):599-605
pubmed: 27103253
Intensive Care Med. 2002 Apr;28(4):392-8
pubmed: 11967591
Br J Anaesth. 2005 Dec;95(6):746-55
pubmed: 16286349
Anesthesiology. 2013 Oct;119(4):824-36
pubmed: 23732173
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2015;47(2):89-116
pubmed: 25421923
Crit Care. 2012 May 30;16(3):R98
pubmed: 22647561
J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2016 Jul;17(7):561-7
pubmed: 27381733
Pancreatology. 2015 Sep-Oct;15(5):497-502
pubmed: 26160657
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 17;12(10):e0178372
pubmed: 29040264
Chest. 2003 Nov;124(5):1900-8
pubmed: 14605066
Crit Care. 2010;14(6):R209
pubmed: 21092252
Crit Care. 2009;13(6):R202
pubmed: 20003415
J Clin Monit Comput. 2017 Feb;31(1):143-151
pubmed: 26831297
Crit Care Med. 2008 Aug;36(8):2348-54
pubmed: 18596637
Crit Care Med. 2007 Mar;35(3):783-6
pubmed: 17255873
Crit Care Med. 2012 Aug;40(8):2479-85
pubmed: 22809915