Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/12204
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPeyton, Philip Jen
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-16T01:51:35Z-
dc.date.available2015-05-16T01:51:35Z-
dc.date.issued2014-05-01en
dc.identifier.citationAnaesthesia and Intensive Care; 42(3): 340-9en
dc.identifier.govdoc24794474en
dc.identifier.otherPUBMEDen
dc.identifier.urihttp://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/12204en
dc.description.abstractAdvanced haemodynamic monitoring employing minimally invasive cardiac output measurement may lead to significant improvements in patient outcomes in major surgery. However, the precision (scatter) of measurement of available generic technologies has been shown to be unsatisfactory with percentage error of agreement with bolus thermodilution (% error) of 40% to 50%. Simultaneous measurement and averaging by two or more technologies may reduce random measurement scatter and improve precision. This concept, called the hybrid method, was tested by comparing accuracy and precision of measurement relative to bolus thermodilution using combinations of three component methods. Thirty patients scheduled for either elective cardiac surgery or liver transplantation were studied. Agreement with simultaneous bolus thermodilution of hybrid combinations of continuous thermodilution (QtCCO) or Vigeleo™/FloTrac™ pulse contour measurement (QtFT) with pulmonary Capnotracking (QtCO2) was assessed pre- and post-cardiopulmonary bypass or pre- and post-reperfusion of the donor liver and compared with that of the component methods alone. Hybridisation of QtCO2 (% error 42.2) and QtCCO (% error 51.3) achieved significantly better precision (% error 31.3) than the component methods (P=0.0004) and (P=0.0195). Due to poor inherent precision of QtFT (% error 82.8), hybrid combination of QtFT with QtCO2 did not result in better precision than QtCO2 alone. Hybrid measurement can approach a 30% error, which is recommended as the upper limit for acceptability. This is a practical option where at least one component method, such as Capnotracking, is automated and does not increase the cost or complexity of the measurement process.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subject.otherCapnotracken
dc.subject.othercardiac output measurementen
dc.subject.otherhybriden
dc.subject.otherthermodilutionen
dc.subject.otherAdulten
dc.subject.otherAgeden
dc.subject.otherAged, 80 and overen
dc.subject.otherCardiac Outputen
dc.subject.otherFemaleen
dc.subject.otherHumansen
dc.subject.otherMaleen
dc.subject.otherMiddle Ageden
dc.subject.otherMonitoring, Physiologic.methodsen
dc.subject.otherPerioperative Perioden
dc.subject.otherThermodilution.methodsen
dc.titleHybrid measurement to achieve satisfactory precision in perioperative cardiac output monitoring.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleAnaesthesia and Intensive Careen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Anaesthesia, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia, and University Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.description.pages340-9en
dc.relation.urlhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24794474en
dc.type.austinJournal Articleen
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
crisitem.author.deptAnaesthesia-
crisitem.author.deptInstitute for Breathing and Sleep-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

6
checked on Feb 7, 2023

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.