Article Sidebar

PDF (Tiếng Việt)
Published: 2023-01-10
Abstract Views: 151
Views PDF (Tiếng Việt): 228
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v160i12V1.1122
Issue
Vol. 160 No. 12V1 (2022)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Tư, N. B. ., Phương, V. H. ., & Tú, V. N. . (2023). 19. The relevance of the cardiac output indices measured by electrical cardiometry versus thermodilution in patients after open-heart surgery. Journal of Medical Research, 160(12V1), 137-144. https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v160i12V1.1122

19. The relevance of the cardiac output indices measured by electrical cardiometry versus thermodilution in patients after open-heart surgery

Nguyen Ba Tu, Vu Hoang Phuong, Vu Ngoc Tu

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: Non-invasive cardiac output measurement can replace invasive clinical methods. The study was conducted to investigate the correlation and the agreement of the cardiac output indices (cardiac index, stroke volume variation, and systemic vascular resistance index) measured by the non-invasive method Electrical Cardiometry (EC) compared with the invasive method Thermodilution (TD). 240 pairs of data were obtained from 15 patients; the correlation coefficients of these indices from the two methods calculated were 0.78, 0.84, and 0.84 respectively (p < 0.01). The Bland-Altman analysis reveals the percentage error of these indices between the two methods was 16.6%, 53.0%, and 17.9%, respectively. Therefore, there is a strong correlation between the two methods. The agreement between EC and TD is clinically acceptable and these two techniques can be used interchangeably when measuring cardiac index and systemic vascular resistance index, but more studies are needed to be able to conclude about the relevance when measuring stroke volume variation.

Article Details

Keywords

electrical cardiometry, thermodilution, cardiac index, cardiac output, stroke volume variation, systemic vascular resistance index

References

1. Mathews L, Singh RKK. Swan-Ganz Catheter in Hemodynamic Monitoring. Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology. 2006;22(4).
2. Schirmer U. Pulmonary artery catheter in anaesthesia and intensive care medicine. Anaesthesist. 2007;56(3):273-5; author reply 276, 278-80. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-007-1139-3.
3. Binanay C, Califf RM, Hasselblad V, et al. Evaluation study of congestive heart failure and pulmonary artery catheterization effectiveness: The ESCAPE trial. JAMA. 2005;294(13):1625-1633. doi: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.294.13.1625.
4. Appel PL, Kram HB, Mackabee J, et al. Comparison of measurements of cardiac output by bioimpedance and thermodilution in severely ill surgical patients. Crit Care Med. 1986;14(11):933-935. doi: http://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-198611000-00004.
5. Malik V, Subramanian A, Chauhan S, et al. Correlation of electric cardiometry and continuous thermodilution cardiac output monitoring systems. World Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery. 2014;04(07):101-108. doi: http://doi.org/10.4236/wjcs.2014.47016.
6. Soliman R. Prediction of fluid status and survival by electrical cardiometry in septic patients with acute circulatory failure. The Egyptian Journal of Critical Care Medicine. 2017;5(2):65-68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejccm.2017.03.001.
7. Critchley LA, Critchley JA. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. Journal of clinical monitoring and computing. 1999;15(2):85-91.
8. Mackenzie JD, Haites NE, Rawles JM. Method of assessing the reproducibility of blood flow measurement: Factors influencing the performance of thermodilution cardiac output computers. Heart. 1986;55(1):14-24. doi: http://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.55.1.14.
9. Stetz CW, Miller RG, Kelly GE, et al. Reliability of the thermodilution method in the determination of cardiac output in clinical practice. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 1982;126(6):1001-1004.
10. Shoemaker WC, Belzberg H, Wo CC, et al. Multicenter study of noninvasive monitoring systems as alternatives to invasive monitoring of acutely III emergency patients. Chest. 1998;114(6):1643-1652.
11. Heringlake M, Handke U, Hanke T, et al. Lack of agreement between thermodilution and electrical velocimetry cardiac output measurements. Intensive Care Medicine. 2007;33(12):2168-2172.
12. Tomaske M, Knirsch W, Kretschmar O, et al. Cardiac output measurement in children: comparison of Aesculon cardiac output monitor and thermodilution. British journal of anaesthesia. 2008;100(4):517-520.
13. Petter H, Erik A, Björn E, et al. Measurement of cardiac output with non-invasive Aesculon impedance versus thermodilution. Clinical physiology and functional imaging. 2011;31(1):39-47.
14. Van Der Meer B, VRIES JMD, Schreuder W, et al. Impedance cardiography in cardiac surgery patients: Abnormal body weight gives unreliable cardiac output measurements. Acta anaesthesiologica scandinavica. 1997;41(6):708-712.