Cargando…

Estimation of mean systemic filling pressure in postoperative cardiac surgery patients with three methods

PURPOSE: To assess the level of agreement between different bedside estimates of effective circulating blood volume—mean systemic filling pressure (Pmsf), arm equilibrium pressure (Parm) and model analog (Pmsa)—in ICU patients. METHODS: Eleven mechanically ventilated postoperative cardiac surgery pa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maas, Jacinta J., Pinsky, Michael R., Geerts, Bart F., de Wilde, Rob B., Jansen, Jos R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3423572/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22584797
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2586-0
_version_ 1782241116965306368
author Maas, Jacinta J.
Pinsky, Michael R.
Geerts, Bart F.
de Wilde, Rob B.
Jansen, Jos R.
author_facet Maas, Jacinta J.
Pinsky, Michael R.
Geerts, Bart F.
de Wilde, Rob B.
Jansen, Jos R.
author_sort Maas, Jacinta J.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To assess the level of agreement between different bedside estimates of effective circulating blood volume—mean systemic filling pressure (Pmsf), arm equilibrium pressure (Parm) and model analog (Pmsa)—in ICU patients. METHODS: Eleven mechanically ventilated postoperative cardiac surgery patients were studied. Sequential measures were made in the supine position, rotating the bed to a 30° head-up tilt and after fluid loading (500 ml colloid). During each condition four inspiratory hold maneuvers were done to determine Pmsf; arm stop-flow was created by inflating a cuff around the upper arm for 30 s to measure Parm, and Pmsa was estimated from a Guytonian model of the systemic circulation. RESULTS: Mean Pmsf, Parm and Pmsa across all three states were 20.9 ± 5.6, 19.8 ± 5.7 and 14.9 ± 4.0 mmHg, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis for the difference between Parm and Pmsf showed a non-significant bias of −1.0 ± 3.08 mmHg (p = 0.062), a coefficient of variation (COV) of 15 %, and limits of agreement (LOA) of −7.3 and 5.2 mmHg. For the difference between Pmsf and Pmsa we found a bias of −6.0 ± 3.1 mmHg (p < 0.001), COV 17 % and LOA −12.4 and 0.3 mmHg. Changes in Pmsf and Parm and in Pmsf and Pmsa were directionally concordant in response to head-up tilt and volume loading. CONCLUSIONS: Parm and Pmsf are interchangeable in mechanically ventilated postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Changes in effective circulatory volume are tracked well by changes in Parm and Pmsa.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3423572
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34235722012-08-22 Estimation of mean systemic filling pressure in postoperative cardiac surgery patients with three methods Maas, Jacinta J. Pinsky, Michael R. Geerts, Bart F. de Wilde, Rob B. Jansen, Jos R. Intensive Care Med Original PURPOSE: To assess the level of agreement between different bedside estimates of effective circulating blood volume—mean systemic filling pressure (Pmsf), arm equilibrium pressure (Parm) and model analog (Pmsa)—in ICU patients. METHODS: Eleven mechanically ventilated postoperative cardiac surgery patients were studied. Sequential measures were made in the supine position, rotating the bed to a 30° head-up tilt and after fluid loading (500 ml colloid). During each condition four inspiratory hold maneuvers were done to determine Pmsf; arm stop-flow was created by inflating a cuff around the upper arm for 30 s to measure Parm, and Pmsa was estimated from a Guytonian model of the systemic circulation. RESULTS: Mean Pmsf, Parm and Pmsa across all three states were 20.9 ± 5.6, 19.8 ± 5.7 and 14.9 ± 4.0 mmHg, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis for the difference between Parm and Pmsf showed a non-significant bias of −1.0 ± 3.08 mmHg (p = 0.062), a coefficient of variation (COV) of 15 %, and limits of agreement (LOA) of −7.3 and 5.2 mmHg. For the difference between Pmsf and Pmsa we found a bias of −6.0 ± 3.1 mmHg (p < 0.001), COV 17 % and LOA −12.4 and 0.3 mmHg. Changes in Pmsf and Parm and in Pmsf and Pmsa were directionally concordant in response to head-up tilt and volume loading. CONCLUSIONS: Parm and Pmsf are interchangeable in mechanically ventilated postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Changes in effective circulatory volume are tracked well by changes in Parm and Pmsa. Springer-Verlag 2012-05-15 2012 /pmc/articles/PMC3423572/ /pubmed/22584797 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2586-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2012 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Original
Maas, Jacinta J.
Pinsky, Michael R.
Geerts, Bart F.
de Wilde, Rob B.
Jansen, Jos R.
Estimation of mean systemic filling pressure in postoperative cardiac surgery patients with three methods
title Estimation of mean systemic filling pressure in postoperative cardiac surgery patients with three methods
title_full Estimation of mean systemic filling pressure in postoperative cardiac surgery patients with three methods
title_fullStr Estimation of mean systemic filling pressure in postoperative cardiac surgery patients with three methods
title_full_unstemmed Estimation of mean systemic filling pressure in postoperative cardiac surgery patients with three methods
title_short Estimation of mean systemic filling pressure in postoperative cardiac surgery patients with three methods
title_sort estimation of mean systemic filling pressure in postoperative cardiac surgery patients with three methods
topic Original
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3423572/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22584797
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2586-0
work_keys_str_mv AT maasjacintaj estimationofmeansystemicfillingpressureinpostoperativecardiacsurgerypatientswiththreemethods
AT pinskymichaelr estimationofmeansystemicfillingpressureinpostoperativecardiacsurgerypatientswiththreemethods
AT geertsbartf estimationofmeansystemicfillingpressureinpostoperativecardiacsurgerypatientswiththreemethods
AT dewilderobb estimationofmeansystemicfillingpressureinpostoperativecardiacsurgerypatientswiththreemethods
AT jansenjosr estimationofmeansystemicfillingpressureinpostoperativecardiacsurgerypatientswiththreemethods