These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Fick-derived hemodynamics. Oxygen consumption measured directly vs oxygen consumption calculated from CO2 production under steady state and dynamic conditions.
    Author: Cohen IL, Roberts KW, Perkins RJ, Feustel PJ, Shah DM.
    Journal: Chest; 1992 Oct; 102(4):1124-7. PubMed ID: 1395755.
    Abstract:
    Indirect calorimetry is being used increasingly as a tool for hemodynamic monitoring via the Fick equation. This investigation was undertaken to examine the use of carbon dioxide elimination (VCO2A) and related respiratory quotient (RQA) to calculate oxygen uptake (VO2A) and estimate oxygen consumption (VO2) during steady-state and dynamic hemodynamic conditions. Nine patients undergoing abdominal aortic surgery were studied intraoperatively and Fick-derived hemodynamic measurements were made using a monitoring system employing indirect calorimetry, pulse oximetry, and pulmonary artery oximetry. Comparisons were made between measured VO2A and calculated VO2A derived from the VCO2A and the initial RQA (RQi), which is assumed not to change. Prior to aortic crossclamping (steady state), there were no significant differences between the measured and calculated methods with respect to oxygen consumption (184 +/- 24 ml/min vs 185 +/- 17 ml/min), oxygen delivery (753 +/- 141 ml/min vs 769 +/- 178 ml/min), and cardiac output (4.7 +/- 0.6 L/min vs 4.7 +/- 0.7 L/min). However, immediately following aortic unclamping (dynamic state), the RQA changed precipitously from the baseline RQi. Consequently, significant differences between the measured and calculated methods were noted in oxygen uptake (213 +/- 41 ml/min vs 193 +/- 25 ml/min, p < 0.001), oxygen delivery (780 +/- 297 ml/min vs 716 +/- 296 ml/min, p < 0.001), and cardiac output (5.8 +/- 2.2 L/min vs 5.3 +/- 1.8 L/min, p < 0.001). Additionally, following unclamping, the peak VO2A was 242 +/- 49 compared with a cVO2A of only 198 +/- 22 (p < 0.01). We conclude that the use of VCO2A to calculate VO2A may lead to erroneous measurements under dynamic conditions, such as unclamping of the abdominal aorta.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]