腹部大手术患者的血流动力学监测及心电测量与食管多普勒的相关性

IF 0.6 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2023-05-11 DOI:10.1080/11101849.2023.2209415
Shady Rady Abdalla, Ahmed Salah Abdelazeem, Tarek Abdelhalium Kaddah, Abla Salah Elhadedy, Hanan Farouk Khafagy, Ahmed Abdalla Mohamed, Ahmed Mohamed Essam
{"title":"腹部大手术患者的血流动力学监测及心电测量与食管多普勒的相关性","authors":"Shady Rady Abdalla, Ahmed Salah Abdelazeem, Tarek Abdelhalium Kaddah, Abla Salah Elhadedy, Hanan Farouk Khafagy, Ahmed Abdalla Mohamed, Ahmed Mohamed Essam","doi":"10.1080/11101849.2023.2209415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Transesophageal Doppler (TED) is a minimally invasive monitor that allows continuous hemodynamic variables monitoring. Non-invasive electrical cardiometry (EC) and TED methods added an additional facility to monitor cardiac output (CO) continuously and guide fluid management. The aim of this study was to correlate hemodynamic monitoring between non-invasive EC and Esophageal Doppler (ED) in cases undergoing major abdominal surgery.Methods This prospective observational study was carried out on 35 adult cases, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II or III, undergoing major abdominal surgery. Esophageal Doppler and EC were attached to the same patient. Parameters measured were hemodynamic parameters.Results Comparison of CO with ICON and ED showed that the ICON mean value ranged from 5.6 to 6.2 l/min, and the ED mean value always ranged from 5.7 to 7.6 l/min with the non-significant difference between the two methods. The precision for the ICON ranged from 15.19 to 17.99% and the precision for ED ranged from 13.39 to 17.08%. At a 15% change in ICON, the ED values’ sensitivity was 72.6% and specificity was 30.9% with AUC 0.505.Conclusion The agreement between CO measured by EC and ED is acceptable. Both monitored trend changes and guided fluid administration in the operation theater. The EC is as accurate as ED in measuring hemodynamics during major abdominal surgery.","PeriodicalId":11437,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":"122 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hemodynamic monitoring and correlation between electrical cardiometry and esophageal Doppler in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery\",\"authors\":\"Shady Rady Abdalla, Ahmed Salah Abdelazeem, Tarek Abdelhalium Kaddah, Abla Salah Elhadedy, Hanan Farouk Khafagy, Ahmed Abdalla Mohamed, Ahmed Mohamed Essam\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/11101849.2023.2209415\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Transesophageal Doppler (TED) is a minimally invasive monitor that allows continuous hemodynamic variables monitoring. Non-invasive electrical cardiometry (EC) and TED methods added an additional facility to monitor cardiac output (CO) continuously and guide fluid management. The aim of this study was to correlate hemodynamic monitoring between non-invasive EC and Esophageal Doppler (ED) in cases undergoing major abdominal surgery.Methods This prospective observational study was carried out on 35 adult cases, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II or III, undergoing major abdominal surgery. Esophageal Doppler and EC were attached to the same patient. Parameters measured were hemodynamic parameters.Results Comparison of CO with ICON and ED showed that the ICON mean value ranged from 5.6 to 6.2 l/min, and the ED mean value always ranged from 5.7 to 7.6 l/min with the non-significant difference between the two methods. The precision for the ICON ranged from 15.19 to 17.99% and the precision for ED ranged from 13.39 to 17.08%. At a 15% change in ICON, the ED values’ sensitivity was 72.6% and specificity was 30.9% with AUC 0.505.Conclusion The agreement between CO measured by EC and ED is acceptable. Both monitored trend changes and guided fluid administration in the operation theater. The EC is as accurate as ED in measuring hemodynamics during major abdominal surgery.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":\"122 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2023.2209415\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2023.2209415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:经食管多普勒(TED)是一种微创监护仪,可以连续监测血流动力学变量。无创心电测量(EC)和TED方法增加了额外的设备来连续监测心输出量(CO)并指导液体管理。本研究的目的是在进行腹部大手术的病例中,将无创EC和食管多普勒(ED)的血流动力学监测联系起来。方法对35例美国麻醉医师学会(ASA)评定身体状况为II级或III级的成人腹部大手术患者进行前瞻性观察研究。对同一患者进行食管多普勒和食管超声检查。测量的参数为血流动力学参数。结果CO与ICON和ED的比较显示,ICON的平均值在5.6 ~ 6.2 l/min之间,ED的平均值在5.7 ~ 7.6 l/min之间,两者差异无统计学意义。ICON的精度为15.19 ~ 17.99%,ED的精度为13.39 ~ 17.08%。在ICON变化15%时,ED值的敏感性为72.6%,特异性为30.9%,AUC为0.505。结论EC测定的CO值与ED测定的CO值一致,是可以接受的。两者都监测趋势变化并指导手术室的液体管理。在腹部大手术中,EC与ED一样准确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Hemodynamic monitoring and correlation between electrical cardiometry and esophageal Doppler in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery
Background Transesophageal Doppler (TED) is a minimally invasive monitor that allows continuous hemodynamic variables monitoring. Non-invasive electrical cardiometry (EC) and TED methods added an additional facility to monitor cardiac output (CO) continuously and guide fluid management. The aim of this study was to correlate hemodynamic monitoring between non-invasive EC and Esophageal Doppler (ED) in cases undergoing major abdominal surgery.Methods This prospective observational study was carried out on 35 adult cases, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II or III, undergoing major abdominal surgery. Esophageal Doppler and EC were attached to the same patient. Parameters measured were hemodynamic parameters.Results Comparison of CO with ICON and ED showed that the ICON mean value ranged from 5.6 to 6.2 l/min, and the ED mean value always ranged from 5.7 to 7.6 l/min with the non-significant difference between the two methods. The precision for the ICON ranged from 15.19 to 17.99% and the precision for ED ranged from 13.39 to 17.08%. At a 15% change in ICON, the ED values’ sensitivity was 72.6% and specificity was 30.9% with AUC 0.505.Conclusion The agreement between CO measured by EC and ED is acceptable. Both monitored trend changes and guided fluid administration in the operation theater. The EC is as accurate as ED in measuring hemodynamics during major abdominal surgery.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
78
期刊最新文献
Intrathecal levo-bupivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine for inguinal hernia repairs in ex-preterm infants: A double blinded randomized prospective study Comparison of two different methods as reliable predictors of successful caudal block in children Effect of sevoflurane versus propofol on early cognitive functions in elderly patients after lumbar disc surgery Muscle wasting assessed by ultrasound versus scoring systems as early predictor of outcomes of intensive care unit stay in critically ill patients Posterior quadratus lumborum versus caudal epidural block for perioperative analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing upper abdominal surgeries: Arandomized, double-blind trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1