잠시만 기다려 주세요. 로딩중입니다.

Four different methods of measuring cardiac index during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

대한마취과학회지 2021년 74권 2호 p.120 ~ 133
Heijne Amon, Krijtenburg Piet, Bremers Andre J., Scheffer Gert Jan, Malagon Ignacio, Slagt Cornelis,
소속 상세정보
 ( Heijne Amon ) - Radboud University Medical Center Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine
 ( Krijtenburg Piet ) - Radboud University Medical Center Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine
 ( Bremers Andre J. ) - Radboud University Medical Center Department of Surgery
 ( Scheffer Gert Jan ) - Radboud University Medical Center Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine
 ( Malagon Ignacio ) - Radboud University Medical Center Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine
 ( Slagt Cornelis ) - Radboud University Medical Center Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine

Abstract


Background: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are high-risk extensive abdominal surgery. During high-risk surgery, less invasive methods for cardiac index (CI) measurement have been widely used in operating theater. We investigated the accuracy of CI derived from different methods (FroTrac, ProAQT, ClearSight, and arterial pressure waveform analysis [APWA], from PICCO) and compared them to transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) during CRS and HIPEC in the operative room and intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods: Twenty-five patients scheduled for CRS-HIPEC were enrolled. During nine predefined time-points, simultaneous hemodynamic measurements were performed in the operating room and ICU. Absolute and relative changes of CI were analyzed using a Bland-Altman plot, four-quadrant plot, and interchangeability.

Results: The mean bias was ?0.1 L/min/m2 for ClearSight, ProAQT, and APWA and was ?0.2 L/min/m2 for FloTrac compared with TPTD. All devices had large limits of agreement (LoA). The percentage of errors and interchangeabilities for ClearSight, FloTrac, ProAQT, and APWA were 50%, 50%, 54%, 36% and 36%, 47%, 40%, 72%, respectively. Trending capabilities expressed as concordance using clinically significant CI changes were ?7º ± 39º, ?19º ± 38º, ?13º ± 41º, and ?15º ± 39º. Interchangeability in trending showed low percentages of interchangeable and gray zone data pairs for all devices.

Conclusions: During CRS-HIPEC, ClearSight, FloTrac and ProAQT systems were not able to reliably measure CI compared to TPTD. Reproducibility of changes over time using concordance, angular bias, radial LoA, and interchangeability in trending of all devices was unsatisfactory.

키워드

Cardiac output; Comparative study; Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy; Laparotomy; Pulse wave analysis; Thermodilution

원문 및 링크아웃 정보

 

등재저널 정보