ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) have been the reference standard for calculating cardiac output, echocardiographic estimation of cardiac output (CO) by cardiologists has shown high accuracy compared to PAC measurements. A few studies have assessed the accuracy of echocardiographic estimation of CO in critically ill patients by intensivists with basic training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of CO measurements by intensivists with basic training using pulsed-wave Doppler ultrasound vs. PACs in critically ill patients. METHODS: Critically ill patients who required hemodynamic monitoring with a PAC were eligible for the study. Three different intensivists with basic critical care echocardiography training obtained three measurements of CO on each patient. The maximum of three separate left-ventricular outflow tract diameter measurements and the mean of three LVOT velocity time integral measurements were used. The inter-observer reliability and correlation of CO measured by PACs vs. critical care echocardiography were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were included. Data were analyzed comparing the measurements of CO by PAC vs. echocardiography. The inter-observer reliability for measuring CO by echocardiography was good based on a coefficient of intraclass correlation of 0.6 (95% CI 0.48-0.86, p < 0.001). Bias and limits of agreement between the two techniques were acceptable (0.64 ± 1.18 L/min, 95% limits of agreement of - 1.73 to 3.01 L/min). In patients with CO < 6.5 L/min, the agreement between CO measured by PAC vs. echocardiography improved (0.13 ± 0.89 L/min; 95% limits of agreement of - 1.64 to 2.22 L/min). The mean percentage of error between the two methods was 17%. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care echocardiography performed at the bedside by intensivists with basic critical care echocardiography training is an accurate and reproducible technique to measure cardiac output in critically ill patients.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of a real-time random safety tool on structure, process and outcome indicators. METHODS: Prospective study conducted over a period of 12 months in two adult patient intensive care units. Safety rounds were conducted three days a week ascertaining 37 safety measures (grouped into 10 blocks). In each round, 50% of the patients and 50% of the measures were randomized. The impact of this safety tool was analysed on indicators of structure (safety culture, healthcare protocols), process (improvement proportion related to tool application, IPR) and outcome (mortality, average stay, rate of catheter-related bacteraemias and rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia, VAP). RESULTS: A total of 1214 patient-days were analysed. Structure indicators: the use of the safety tool was associated with an increase in the safety climate and the creation/modification of healthcare protocols (sedation/analgesia and weaning). Process indicators: Twelve of the 37 measures had an IPR > 10%; six showed a progressive decrease in the IPR over the study period. Nursing workloads and patient severity on the day of analysis were independently associated with a higher IPR in half of the blocks of variables. Outcome indicators: A significant decrease in the rate of VAP was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The real-time random safety tool improved the care process and adherence to clinical practice guidelines and was associated with an improvement in structure, process and outcome indicators.
