We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Continuous cardiac output monitoring via arterial pressure waveform analysis following severe hemorrhagic shock in dogs.
Critical Care Medicine 2007 July
OBJECTIVES: To determine agreement and correlation between cardiac output determined by arterial pressure waveform analysis (PulseCO) and the lithium dilution indicator technique (LiDCO) during severe hemorrhagic shock and after fluid resuscitation in dogs.
DESIGN: Prospective experimental study.
SETTING: University research laboratory.
SUBJECTS: Twelve adult mongrel dogs.
INTERVENTIONS: Dogs were anesthetized, and selected arteries and veins were catheterized. Baseline cardiac output was determined by LiDCO and used to calibrate the PulseCO. Hemorrhagic shock was induced by withdrawing blood to achieve and maintain a mean arterial pressure of 30-40 mm Hg for 60 mins, and cardiac output was measured again using both methods. All dogs were resuscitated by administering lactated Ringer's solution intravenously to achieve and maintain a mean arterial pressure between 60 and 70 mm Hg. PulseCO and LiDCO values were measured at 10 and 120 mins after resuscitation.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean baseline cardiac output was 2.93 +/- 0.45 L/min. PulseCO values overestimated cardiac output compared with LiDCO during hemorrhagic shock (2.25 vs. 0.78 L/min). There were no differences in cardiac output determined by PulseCO and LiDCO at 10 and 120 mins after fluid resuscitation. Bland-Altman analysis suggested that PulseCO values were inaccurate after hemorrhage, producing significant bias with wide limits of agreement and percentage error (1.47 +/- 1.46 L/min; 97%). Bias was small but the limits of agreement and percentage error were large for cardiac output at 10 and 120 mins after resuscitation (-0.1 +/- 1.88 [98%] and -0.17 +/- 1.32 [71%] L/min, respectively). There appeared to be a negative but not significant correlation after hemorrhage (r = -.45; p = .15).
CONCLUSIONS: PulseCO determination of cardiac output does not accurately predict rapid decreases in cardiac output or the effects of fluid resuscitation in dogs. Recalibration of PulseCO may be necessary after any apparent or suspected decrease in cardiac preload, afterload, or contractility.
DESIGN: Prospective experimental study.
SETTING: University research laboratory.
SUBJECTS: Twelve adult mongrel dogs.
INTERVENTIONS: Dogs were anesthetized, and selected arteries and veins were catheterized. Baseline cardiac output was determined by LiDCO and used to calibrate the PulseCO. Hemorrhagic shock was induced by withdrawing blood to achieve and maintain a mean arterial pressure of 30-40 mm Hg for 60 mins, and cardiac output was measured again using both methods. All dogs were resuscitated by administering lactated Ringer's solution intravenously to achieve and maintain a mean arterial pressure between 60 and 70 mm Hg. PulseCO and LiDCO values were measured at 10 and 120 mins after resuscitation.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean baseline cardiac output was 2.93 +/- 0.45 L/min. PulseCO values overestimated cardiac output compared with LiDCO during hemorrhagic shock (2.25 vs. 0.78 L/min). There were no differences in cardiac output determined by PulseCO and LiDCO at 10 and 120 mins after fluid resuscitation. Bland-Altman analysis suggested that PulseCO values were inaccurate after hemorrhage, producing significant bias with wide limits of agreement and percentage error (1.47 +/- 1.46 L/min; 97%). Bias was small but the limits of agreement and percentage error were large for cardiac output at 10 and 120 mins after resuscitation (-0.1 +/- 1.88 [98%] and -0.17 +/- 1.32 [71%] L/min, respectively). There appeared to be a negative but not significant correlation after hemorrhage (r = -.45; p = .15).
CONCLUSIONS: PulseCO determination of cardiac output does not accurately predict rapid decreases in cardiac output or the effects of fluid resuscitation in dogs. Recalibration of PulseCO may be necessary after any apparent or suspected decrease in cardiac preload, afterload, or contractility.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app