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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |