Comparative Study on Three Approaches in Measuring Cardiac Volume Load and Hemodynamic Parameters

史宏伟,葛亚力,鲍红光,王晓亮,杜伯祥,罗中华,陈宝林

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-7090.2009.06.013

2009-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate consistency and relevance in monitoring cardiac volume load and hemodynamic parameters determined by pulmonary artery catheter(PAC) technique. Methods Twenty-four patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (group C) and 39 patients underwent valve repair (group V) were enrolled. Cardiac volume load and various hemodynamic parameters before and after fluid administration were monitored by PAC technique, arterial pressure waveform analysis(FloTrac) and transesophageal echocardiography(TEE) technique respectively. The parameters including central venous pressure(CVP), pulmonary capillary wedge pressure(PCWP), cardiac index(CI), right ventricular ejection fraction(RVEF), right ventricular end diastolic volume index(RVEDVI), systemic vascular resistance index(SVRI), stroke volume index(SVI), left ventricular end-diastolic area(EDA), CI and stroke volume variation(SVV) were obtained. Then compared the results from the different approaches for consistency. Results There were significant differences in PCWP, RVEDVI, RVEF, CI and SVI determined by PAC technique in group C between pre-volume therapy and post-volume therapy (P 0.01). Compared with pre-volume therapy values, CI and SVI determined by FloTrac had significant increased(P 0.01), whereas SVV showed a significant decrease in both groups (P 0.01). The LVEDVI, CI, SVI and EDA determined by TEE in both group C and group V were increased significantly in postvolume therapy compared with pre-volume therapy(P 0.01). Bland-Altman comparison showed that there were significant differences between RVEDVI and LVEDVI, mean positive bias were 40.5 mL in group C and 53.2 mL in group V. There was negative bias in CI among the results determined by 3 techniques. Comparison of receiver operating characteristic(ROC) curve of CI predicting cardiac systolic dysfunction, there was no significant difference between CI determined by FloTrac and PAC technique (P = 0.928). Conclusion The EDA and SVV can predict fluid in real time responsiveness with an acceptable sensitivity. It is more valuable for continuous monitoring RVEDVI. The minimal invasive techniques, such as FloTrac and TEE would have adopted when traditional technique is difficult in assessing hemodynamics.