Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artículo científico |
| Language: | en |
| Published: |
Vilniaus Universitetas
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=694073931007 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866581794876293120 |
|---|---|
| author | Jonė Jackevičiūtė |
| author_facet | Jonė Jackevičiūtė |
| contents | Comparison of two continuous non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring techniques in the perioperative setting Jonė Jackevičiūtė Greta Kraujalytė Inna Jaremko Vilija Stremaitytė Jūratė Gudaitytė Medicina non invasive bioimpedance cardiac output intraoperative Background. The aim of the study was to identify the accuracy of and agreement between two non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring techniques in the perioperative setting – thoracic electrical bioimpedance (TEB) and Edwards Lifesciences ClearSight system (CS). Materials and methods. The study included ten patients. Parametric quantitative data were expressed as mean ± SD. The ShapiroWilk test was used to test the normality of the distributions. A linear regression model was used to measure the strength of the linear relationship between TEB and CS. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the mean difference, precision, and the limits of agreements (LOA). The Critchley and Critchley method was used to calculate the percentage error (PE), and if <30%, it was considered clinically acceptable. Results. Ten patients were involved in our study. The mean cardiac output (CO) with TEB was 6.15 ± 1.14 L/min vs. 4.78 ± 1.40 L/min with CS (p < 0.01). The relationship was significant (n = 144; r2 = 0.7; p < 0.01). The mean bias, LOA, and PE were 1.37 ± 1.01 L/min, 3.35 L/min and –0.61 L/min and 36.22%, respectively. The mean stroke volume index (SVI) with TEB was 48.64 ± 9.8 ml/beat/m2 vs. 37.12 ± 9.14 ml/beat/m2 with CS (p < 0.01). The relationship was significant (n = 144; r2 = 0.65; p < 0.01). The mean bias, LOA, and PE were 11.52 ± 7.92 ml/beat/m2, 27.04 ml/beat/m2 and –4 ml/beat/m2 and 36.19%. Conclusions. The two methods of non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring are not compatible in the perioperative setting. However, the CS system has more advantages in terms of continuity and simplicity of monitoring, while measurements of TEB are interrupted by electrocautery. 2019 artículo científico 2029-4174 https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=694073931007 10.6001/actamedica.v26i1.3953. en http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=6940 Acta medica Lituanica application/pdf Vilniaus Universitetas Acta medica Lituanica (Lituania) Num.1 Vol.26 |
| format | Artículo científico |
| id | redalyc_694073931007 |
| language | en |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publisher | Vilniaus Universitetas |
| spellingShingle | Comparison of two continuous non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring techniques in the perioperative setting Jonė Jackevičiūtė Medicina non invasive bioimpedance cardiac output intraoperative Comparison of two continuous non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring techniques in the perioperative setting Jonė Jackevičiūtė Greta Kraujalytė Inna Jaremko Vilija Stremaitytė Jūratė Gudaitytė Medicina non invasive bioimpedance cardiac output intraoperative Background. The aim of the study was to identify the accuracy of and agreement between two non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring techniques in the perioperative setting – thoracic electrical bioimpedance (TEB) and Edwards Lifesciences ClearSight system (CS). Materials and methods. The study included ten patients. Parametric quantitative data were expressed as mean ± SD. The ShapiroWilk test was used to test the normality of the distributions. A linear regression model was used to measure the strength of the linear relationship between TEB and CS. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the mean difference, precision, and the limits of agreements (LOA). The Critchley and Critchley method was used to calculate the percentage error (PE), and if <30%, it was considered clinically acceptable. Results. Ten patients were involved in our study. The mean cardiac output (CO) with TEB was 6.15 ± 1.14 L/min vs. 4.78 ± 1.40 L/min with CS (p < 0.01). The relationship was significant (n = 144; r2 = 0.7; p < 0.01). The mean bias, LOA, and PE were 1.37 ± 1.01 L/min, 3.35 L/min and –0.61 L/min and 36.22%, respectively. The mean stroke volume index (SVI) with TEB was 48.64 ± 9.8 ml/beat/m2 vs. 37.12 ± 9.14 ml/beat/m2 with CS (p < 0.01). The relationship was significant (n = 144; r2 = 0.65; p < 0.01). The mean bias, LOA, and PE were 11.52 ± 7.92 ml/beat/m2, 27.04 ml/beat/m2 and –4 ml/beat/m2 and 36.19%. Conclusions. The two methods of non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring are not compatible in the perioperative setting. However, the CS system has more advantages in terms of continuity and simplicity of monitoring, while measurements of TEB are interrupted by electrocautery. 2019 artículo científico 2029-4174 https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=694073931007 10.6001/actamedica.v26i1.3953. en http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=6940 Acta medica Lituanica application/pdf Vilniaus Universitetas Acta medica Lituanica (Lituania) Num.1 Vol.26 |
| title | Comparison of two continuous non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring techniques in the perioperative setting |
| topic | Medicina non invasive bioimpedance cardiac output intraoperative |
| url | https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=694073931007 |