Cargando…
Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure
Mean systemic filling pressure (Pms) is a promising parameter in determining intravascular fluid status. Pms derived from venous return curves during inspiratory holds with incremental airway pressures (Pms-Insp) estimates Pms reliably but is labor-intensive. A computerized algorithm to calculate Pm...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8011774/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33791920 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-020-00636-2 |
_version_ | 1783673273279578112 |
---|---|
author | Meijs, Loek P.B. van Houte, Joris Conjaerts, Bente C. M. Bindels, Alexander J. G. H. Bouwman, Arthur Houterman, Saskia Bakker, Jan |
author_facet | Meijs, Loek P.B. van Houte, Joris Conjaerts, Bente C. M. Bindels, Alexander J. G. H. Bouwman, Arthur Houterman, Saskia Bakker, Jan |
author_sort | Meijs, Loek P.B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Mean systemic filling pressure (Pms) is a promising parameter in determining intravascular fluid status. Pms derived from venous return curves during inspiratory holds with incremental airway pressures (Pms-Insp) estimates Pms reliably but is labor-intensive. A computerized algorithm to calculate Pms (Pmsa) at the bedside has been proposed. In previous studies Pmsa and Pms-Insp correlated well but with considerable bias. This observational study was performed to validate Pmsa with Pms-Insp in cardiac surgery patients. Cardiac output, right atrial pressure and mean arterial pressure were prospectively recorded to calculate Pmsa using a bedside monitor. Pms-Insp was calculated offline after performing inspiratory holds. Intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC) and assessment of agreement were used to compare Pmsa with Pms-Insp. Bias, coefficient of variance (COV), precision and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated. Proportional bias was assessed with linear regression. A high degree of inter-method reliability was found between Pmsa and Pms-Insp (ICC 0.89; 95%CI 0.72–0.96, p = 0.01) in 18 patients. Pmsa and Pms-Insp differed not significantly (11.9 mmHg, IQR 9.8–13.4 vs. 12.7 mmHg, IQR 10.5–14.4, p = 0.38). Bias was −0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg (p = 0.277). COV was 4% with LOA –4.22 − 3.22 mmHg without proportional bias. Conversion coefficient Pmsa ➔ Pms-Insp was 0.94. This assessment of agreement demonstrates that the measures Pms-Insp and the computerized Pmsa-algorithm are interchangeable (bias −0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg with conversion coefficient 0.94). The choice of Pmsa is straightforward, it is non-interventional and available continuously at the bedside in contrast to Pms-Insp which is interventional and calculated off-line. Further studies should be performed to determine the place of Pmsa in the circulatory management of critically ill patients. (www.clinicaltrials.gov; TRN NCT04202432, release date 16-12-2019; retrospectively registered). Clinical Trial Registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov, TRN: NCT04202432, initial release date 16-12-2019 (retrospectively registered). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8011774 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Netherlands |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80117742021-04-01 Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure Meijs, Loek P.B. van Houte, Joris Conjaerts, Bente C. M. Bindels, Alexander J. G. H. Bouwman, Arthur Houterman, Saskia Bakker, Jan J Clin Monit Comput Original Research Mean systemic filling pressure (Pms) is a promising parameter in determining intravascular fluid status. Pms derived from venous return curves during inspiratory holds with incremental airway pressures (Pms-Insp) estimates Pms reliably but is labor-intensive. A computerized algorithm to calculate Pms (Pmsa) at the bedside has been proposed. In previous studies Pmsa and Pms-Insp correlated well but with considerable bias. This observational study was performed to validate Pmsa with Pms-Insp in cardiac surgery patients. Cardiac output, right atrial pressure and mean arterial pressure were prospectively recorded to calculate Pmsa using a bedside monitor. Pms-Insp was calculated offline after performing inspiratory holds. Intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC) and assessment of agreement were used to compare Pmsa with Pms-Insp. Bias, coefficient of variance (COV), precision and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated. Proportional bias was assessed with linear regression. A high degree of inter-method reliability was found between Pmsa and Pms-Insp (ICC 0.89; 95%CI 0.72–0.96, p = 0.01) in 18 patients. Pmsa and Pms-Insp differed not significantly (11.9 mmHg, IQR 9.8–13.4 vs. 12.7 mmHg, IQR 10.5–14.4, p = 0.38). Bias was −0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg (p = 0.277). COV was 4% with LOA –4.22 − 3.22 mmHg without proportional bias. Conversion coefficient Pmsa ➔ Pms-Insp was 0.94. This assessment of agreement demonstrates that the measures Pms-Insp and the computerized Pmsa-algorithm are interchangeable (bias −0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg with conversion coefficient 0.94). The choice of Pmsa is straightforward, it is non-interventional and available continuously at the bedside in contrast to Pms-Insp which is interventional and calculated off-line. Further studies should be performed to determine the place of Pmsa in the circulatory management of critically ill patients. (www.clinicaltrials.gov; TRN NCT04202432, release date 16-12-2019; retrospectively registered). Clinical Trial Registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov, TRN: NCT04202432, initial release date 16-12-2019 (retrospectively registered). Springer Netherlands 2021-03-31 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8011774/ /pubmed/33791920 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-020-00636-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Meijs, Loek P.B. van Houte, Joris Conjaerts, Bente C. M. Bindels, Alexander J. G. H. Bouwman, Arthur Houterman, Saskia Bakker, Jan Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure |
title | Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure |
title_full | Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure |
title_fullStr | Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure |
title_short | Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure |
title_sort | clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8011774/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33791920 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-020-00636-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT meijsloekpb clinicalvalidationofacomputerizedalgorithmtodeterminemeansystemicfillingpressure AT vanhoutejoris clinicalvalidationofacomputerizedalgorithmtodeterminemeansystemicfillingpressure AT conjaertsbentecm clinicalvalidationofacomputerizedalgorithmtodeterminemeansystemicfillingpressure AT bindelsalexanderjgh clinicalvalidationofacomputerizedalgorithmtodeterminemeansystemicfillingpressure AT bouwmanarthur clinicalvalidationofacomputerizedalgorithmtodeterminemeansystemicfillingpressure AT houtermansaskia clinicalvalidationofacomputerizedalgorithmtodeterminemeansystemicfillingpressure AT bakkerjan clinicalvalidationofacomputerizedalgorithmtodeterminemeansystemicfillingpressure |