Cardiac Index Assessment by the Pressure Recording Analytic Method in Critically Ill Unstable Patients After Cardiac Surgery

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributor.authorBarille, Luigi
dc.contributor.authorLandoni, Giovanni
dc.contributor.authorPieri, Marina
dc.contributor.authorRuggeri, Laura
dc.contributor.authorMaj, Giulia
dc.contributor.authorNigro Neto, Caetano [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorPasin, Laura [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorCabrini, Luca [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorZangrillo, Alberto
dc.contributor.institutionIst Sci San Raffaele
dc.contributor.institutionDante Pazzanese Inst Cardiol
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-24T14:34:49Z
dc.date.available2016-01-24T14:34:49Z
dc.date.issued2013-12-01
dc.description.abstractObjective: the authors measured cardiac index in unstable patients after cardiac surgery with the Pressure Recording Analytic Method (PRAM) and compared it with the reference method of thermodilution (ThD) with the pulmonary artery catheter; using the hypothesis that there were no significant differences between the 2 methods.Design: A prospective study.Setting: Cardiac surgery intensive care unit in a teaching hospital.Participants: Ninety-four measurements from 59 patients with ongoing high doses of inotropic drugs and/or an intra-aortic balloon pump for low-cardiac-output syndrome after cardiac surgery were studied.Interventions: the pulmonary artery catheter and the radial or femoral arterial catheter for measuring blood pressure were already in place for standard hemodynamic monitoring.Measurements and Main Results: the mean of the total Cl measurements was 2.94 +/- 0.67 L/min/m(2) with PRAM and 2.95 +/- 0.63 L/min/m(2) with ThD, with no significant difference according to the linear mixed models analysis. the PRAM and ThD techniques were similar in unstable patients without atrial fibrillation (mean bias 0.047 +/- 0.395 L/min/m(2) and a percentage error of 29%), while no agreement between PRAM and ThD was found in unstable patients with atrial fibrillation (mean bias 0.195 +/- 0.885 L/min/m(2) and a percentage error of 69%).Conclusion: Cardiac index measurements after cardiac surgery performed with PRAM and with ThD showed a good agreement in hemodynamically unstable patients given high doses of inotropes and/or an IABP in patients in sinus rhythm, but not in those with atrial fibrillation. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.en
dc.description.affiliationIst Sci San Raffaele, Anesthesia & Intens Care Dept, I-20132 Milan, Italy
dc.description.affiliationDante Pazzanese Inst Cardiol, Anaesthesia & Intens Care Dept, São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationFed Univ São Paulo UNIFESP, São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnifespFed Univ São Paulo UNIFESP, EPM, São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.sourceWeb of Science
dc.format.extent1108-1113
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2013.02.016
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. Philadelphia: W B Saunders Co-Elsevier Inc, v. 27, n. 6, p. 1108-1113, 2013.
dc.identifier.doi10.1053/j.jvca.2013.02.016
dc.identifier.issn1053-0770
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/37051
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000328181700006
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.rights.licensehttp://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/article-posting-policy
dc.subjectpressure recording analytic methoden
dc.subjectPRAMen
dc.subjectpulmonary artery catheteren
dc.subjectcardiac indexen
dc.subjectcardiac surgeryen
dc.subjecthigh-risk patientsen
dc.subjectunstable patientsen
dc.subjectatrial fibrillationen
dc.subjectanesthesiaen
dc.subjectintensive careen
dc.subjectthermodilutionen
dc.titleCardiac Index Assessment by the Pressure Recording Analytic Method in Critically Ill Unstable Patients After Cardiac Surgeryen
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
Arquivos
Coleções
EPM - Artigos