非校准多搏动分析连续心输出量监测仪的偏差、趋势分析能力和诊断性能,用于识别重症患者的液体反应性

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Critical Care and Resuscitation Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ccrj.2024.04.003
Laurent Bitker MD, PhD , Inès Noirot MD , Louis Chauvelot MD , Mehdi Mezidi MD, MSc , François Dhelft MD, MSc , Maxime Gaillet MD , Hodane Yonis MD , Guillaume Deniel MD, MSc , Jean-Christophe Richard MD, PhD
{"title":"非校准多搏动分析连续心输出量监测仪的偏差、趋势分析能力和诊断性能,用于识别重症患者的液体反应性","authors":"Laurent Bitker MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Inès Noirot MD ,&nbsp;Louis Chauvelot MD ,&nbsp;Mehdi Mezidi MD, MSc ,&nbsp;François Dhelft MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Maxime Gaillet MD ,&nbsp;Hodane Yonis MD ,&nbsp;Guillaume Deniel MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Jean-Christophe Richard MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.ccrj.2024.04.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To evaluate the accuracy of non-calibrated multi-beat analysis continuous cardiac output (CCO<sub>MBA</sub>), against calibrated pulse-contour analysis continuous cardiac output (CCO<sub>PCA</sub>) during a passive leg raise (PLR) and/or a fluid challenge (FC).</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Observational, single-centre, prospective study.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Tertiary academic medical intensive care unit, Lyon, France.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>Adult patients receiving norepinephrine, monitored by CCO<sub>PCA</sub>, and in which a PLR and/or a FC was indicated.</p></div><div><h3>Main outcome measures</h3><p>CCO<sub>MBA</sub> and CCO<sub>PCA</sub> were recorded prior to and during the PLR/FC to evaluate bias and evaluate changes in CCO<sub>MBA</sub> and CCO<sub>PCA</sub> (∆%CCO<sub>MBA</sub> and ∆%CCO<sub>PCA</sub>). Fluid responsiveness was identified by an increase &gt;15% in calibrated cardiac output after FC, to identify the optimal ∆%CCO<sub>MBA</sub> threshold during PLR to predict fluid responsiveness.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>29 patients (median age 68 [IQR: 57–74]) performed 28 PLR and 16 FC. The bias between methods increased with higher CCO<sub>PCA</sub> values, with a percentage error of 64% (<sub>95%</sub>confidence interval: 52%–77%). ∆%CCO<sub>MBA</sub> adequately tracked changes in ∆%CCO<sub>PCA</sub> with an angular bias of 2 ± 29°. ∆%CCO<sub>MBA</sub> during PLR had an AUROC of 0.92 (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.05), with an optimal threshold &gt;14% to predict fluid responsiveness (sensitivity: 0.99, specificity: 0.87).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>CCO<sub>MBA</sub> showed a non-constant bias and a percentage error &gt;30% against calibrated CCO<sub>PCA</sub>, but an adequate ability to track changes in CCO<sub>PCA</sub> and to predict fluid responsiveness.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49215,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care and Resuscitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277224000127/pdfft?md5=b5598a5c4abd944b51bf2371a07c3fa7&pid=1-s2.0-S1441277224000127-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bias, trending ability and diagnostic performance of a non-calibrated multi-beat analysis continuous cardiac output monitor to identify fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients\",\"authors\":\"Laurent Bitker MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Inès Noirot MD ,&nbsp;Louis Chauvelot MD ,&nbsp;Mehdi Mezidi MD, MSc ,&nbsp;François Dhelft MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Maxime Gaillet MD ,&nbsp;Hodane Yonis MD ,&nbsp;Guillaume Deniel MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Jean-Christophe Richard MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ccrj.2024.04.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To evaluate the accuracy of non-calibrated multi-beat analysis continuous cardiac output (CCO<sub>MBA</sub>), against calibrated pulse-contour analysis continuous cardiac output (CCO<sub>PCA</sub>) during a passive leg raise (PLR) and/or a fluid challenge (FC).</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Observational, single-centre, prospective study.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Tertiary academic medical intensive care unit, Lyon, France.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>Adult patients receiving norepinephrine, monitored by CCO<sub>PCA</sub>, and in which a PLR and/or a FC was indicated.</p></div><div><h3>Main outcome measures</h3><p>CCO<sub>MBA</sub> and CCO<sub>PCA</sub> were recorded prior to and during the PLR/FC to evaluate bias and evaluate changes in CCO<sub>MBA</sub> and CCO<sub>PCA</sub> (∆%CCO<sub>MBA</sub> and ∆%CCO<sub>PCA</sub>). Fluid responsiveness was identified by an increase &gt;15% in calibrated cardiac output after FC, to identify the optimal ∆%CCO<sub>MBA</sub> threshold during PLR to predict fluid responsiveness.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>29 patients (median age 68 [IQR: 57–74]) performed 28 PLR and 16 FC. The bias between methods increased with higher CCO<sub>PCA</sub> values, with a percentage error of 64% (<sub>95%</sub>confidence interval: 52%–77%). ∆%CCO<sub>MBA</sub> adequately tracked changes in ∆%CCO<sub>PCA</sub> with an angular bias of 2 ± 29°. ∆%CCO<sub>MBA</sub> during PLR had an AUROC of 0.92 (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.05), with an optimal threshold &gt;14% to predict fluid responsiveness (sensitivity: 0.99, specificity: 0.87).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>CCO<sub>MBA</sub> showed a non-constant bias and a percentage error &gt;30% against calibrated CCO<sub>PCA</sub>, but an adequate ability to track changes in CCO<sub>PCA</sub> and to predict fluid responsiveness.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49215,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care and Resuscitation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277224000127/pdfft?md5=b5598a5c4abd944b51bf2371a07c3fa7&pid=1-s2.0-S1441277224000127-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care and Resuscitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277224000127\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care and Resuscitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277224000127","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估在被动抬腿(PLR)和/或液体挑战(FC)期间,非校准多搏动分析连续心输出量(CCOMBA)与校准脉搏轮廓分析连续心输出量(CCOPCA)的准确性。主要结果测量在 PLR/FC 之前和过程中记录 CCOMBA 和 CCOPCA,以评估偏差并评价 CCOMBA 和 CCOPCA 的变化(∆%CCOMBA 和 ∆%CCOPCA)。结果 29 名患者(中位年龄 68 [IQR:57-74])进行了 28 次 PLR 和 16 次 FC。CCOPCA 值越高,方法之间的偏差越大,误差百分比为 64%(95% 置信区间:52%-77%)。∆%CCOMBA 可以充分跟踪 ∆%CCOPCA 的变化,角度偏差为 2 ± 29°。结论 ∆%CCOMBA 在 PLR 期间的 AUROC 为 0.92(P <0.05),预测液体反应性的最佳阈值为 14%(灵敏度:0.99,特异性:0.87)。
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
Bias, trending ability and diagnostic performance of a non-calibrated multi-beat analysis continuous cardiac output monitor to identify fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients

Objective

To evaluate the accuracy of non-calibrated multi-beat analysis continuous cardiac output (CCOMBA), against calibrated pulse-contour analysis continuous cardiac output (CCOPCA) during a passive leg raise (PLR) and/or a fluid challenge (FC).

Design

Observational, single-centre, prospective study.

Setting

Tertiary academic medical intensive care unit, Lyon, France.

Participants

Adult patients receiving norepinephrine, monitored by CCOPCA, and in which a PLR and/or a FC was indicated.

Main outcome measures

CCOMBA and CCOPCA were recorded prior to and during the PLR/FC to evaluate bias and evaluate changes in CCOMBA and CCOPCA (∆%CCOMBA and ∆%CCOPCA). Fluid responsiveness was identified by an increase >15% in calibrated cardiac output after FC, to identify the optimal ∆%CCOMBA threshold during PLR to predict fluid responsiveness.

Results

29 patients (median age 68 [IQR: 57–74]) performed 28 PLR and 16 FC. The bias between methods increased with higher CCOPCA values, with a percentage error of 64% (95%confidence interval: 52%–77%). ∆%CCOMBA adequately tracked changes in ∆%CCOPCA with an angular bias of 2 ± 29°. ∆%CCOMBA during PLR had an AUROC of 0.92 (P < 0.05), with an optimal threshold >14% to predict fluid responsiveness (sensitivity: 0.99, specificity: 0.87).

Conclusions

CCOMBA showed a non-constant bias and a percentage error >30% against calibrated CCOPCA, but an adequate ability to track changes in CCOPCA and to predict fluid responsiveness.

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
Critical Care and Resuscitation
Critical Care and Resuscitation CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
3.40%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ritical Care and Resuscitation (CC&R) is the official scientific journal of the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM). The Journal is a quarterly publication (ISSN 1441-2772) with original articles of scientific and clinical interest in the specialities of Critical Care, Intensive Care, Anaesthesia, Emergency Medicine and related disciplines. The Journal is received by all Fellows and trainees, along with an increasing number of subscribers from around the world. The CC&R Journal currently has an impact factor of 3.3, placing it in 8th position in world critical care journals and in first position in the world outside the USA and Europe.
期刊最新文献
Recommendations for the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM) trainee research project: A modified Delphi study ARDS, guidelines and ANZ practice: The persistent disconnect Management of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in Australia and New Zealand (SAGE-ANZ): An observational study Sonographic evaluation of intracranial hemodynamics and pressure after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: An exploratory sub-study of the TAME trial A retrospective registry-based study into the proportion of patients admitted to intensive care who have anaphylaxis as a principal diagnosis and their outcomes in Australia and New Zealand
×
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