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: Cardiac output estimation by pulse wave analysis using the pressure recording analytical method and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution: A method comparison study after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.
    Author: Greiwe G, Luehsen K, Hapfelmeier A, Rogge D, Kubik M, Schulte-Uentrop L, Saugel B.
    Journal: Eur J Anaesthesiol; 2020 Oct; 37(10):920-925. PubMed ID: 32398582.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Invasive pulse wave analysis is used in peri-operative settings to estimate cardiac output (CO). The 'pressure recording analytical method' (PRAM) implemented in the MostCareUp CO monitor is an invasive pulse wave analysis method using high-frequency sampling and analysis of the pulse wave to directly estimate the arterial impedance as a key variable of the proprietary CO estimation algorithm. OBJECTIVE: To compare CO estimated by PRAM (PRAM-CO; test method) with CO measured by pulmonary artery thermodilution (PATD-CO; reference method). DESIGN: Prospective observational method comparison study. PRAM-CO and PATD-CO were assessed simultaneously at five time points with at least 20 min between measurements. Arterial pressure waveforms were carefully checked for damping artefacts and a proprietary electronic filter of the MostCareUp CO monitor was used to optimise waveform quality. SETTING: ICU of a German university hospital from August 2018 until April 2019. PATIENTS: We included adult patients admitted to the ICU after elective off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery who were monitored with a radial arterial catheter and a pulmonary artery catheter. Patients with severe heart valve insufficiency or persistent arrhythmia were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: PATD-CO and PRAM-CO were compared using Bland-Altman analysis accounting for repeated measurements, the percentage error and trending analysis (four-quadrant plot, concordance rate). RESULTS: We analysed 195 paired CO values of 41 patients. Mean PATD-CO and PRAM-CO were 4.99 ± 1.02 and 4.92 ± 1.05 l min, respectively. PATD-CO and PRAM-CO ranged from 3.04 to 8.74 and 2.79 to 8.01 l min, respectively. The mean of the differences between PATD-CO and PRAM-CO was -0.08 ± 0.74 l min with 95% limits of agreement of -1.55 to +1.40 l min. The percentage error was 29.8%. The concordance rate in four-quadrant plot analysis was 92%. CONCLUSION: Using the system's electronic waveform filter PRAM-CO shows good agreement and trending ability compared with PATD-CO in adults after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]