Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure.
Meijs, Loek P B; van Houte, Joris; Conjaerts, Bente C M; Bindels, Alexander J G H; Bouwman, Arthur; Houterman, Saskia; Bakker, Jan.
Afiliação
  • Meijs LPB; Department of Intensive Care, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. cardiology.intensivecare@gmail.com.
  • van Houte J; Department of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. cardiology.intensivecare@gmail.com.
  • Conjaerts BCM; Department of Intensive Care, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
  • Bindels AJGH; Department of Anesthesiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
  • Bouwman A; Department of Anesthesiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  • Houterman S; Department of Intensive Care, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
  • Bakker J; Department of Anesthesiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
J Clin Monit Comput ; 36(1): 191-198, 2022 02.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33791920
Mean systemic filling pressure (Pms) is a promising parameter in determining intravascular fluid status. Pms derived from venous return curves during inspiratory holds with incremental airway pressures (Pms-Insp) estimates Pms reliably but is labor-intensive. A computerized algorithm to calculate Pms (Pmsa) at the bedside has been proposed. In previous studies Pmsa and Pms-Insp correlated well but with considerable bias. This observational study was performed to validate Pmsa with Pms-Insp in cardiac surgery patients. Cardiac output, right atrial pressure and mean arterial pressure were prospectively recorded to calculate Pmsa using a bedside monitor. Pms-Insp was calculated offline after performing inspiratory holds. Intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC) and assessment of agreement were used to compare Pmsa with Pms-Insp. Bias, coefficient of variance (COV), precision and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated. Proportional bias was assessed with linear regression. A high degree of inter-method reliability was found between Pmsa and Pms-Insp (ICC 0.89; 95%CI 0.72-0.96, p = 0.01) in 18 patients. Pmsa and Pms-Insp differed not significantly (11.9 mmHg, IQR 9.8-13.4 vs. 12.7 mmHg, IQR 10.5-14.4, p = 0.38). Bias was -0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg (p = 0.277). COV was 4% with LOA -4.22 - 3.22 mmHg without proportional bias. Conversion coefficient Pmsa âž” Pms-Insp was 0.94. This assessment of agreement demonstrates that the measures Pms-Insp and the computerized Pmsa-algorithm are interchangeable (bias -0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg with conversion coefficient 0.94). The choice of Pmsa is straightforward, it is non-interventional and available continuously at the bedside in contrast to Pms-Insp which is interventional and calculated off-line. Further studies should be performed to determine the place of Pmsa in the circulatory management of critically ill patients. ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ; TRN NCT04202432, release date 16-12-2019; retrospectively registered).Clinical Trial Registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov , TRN: NCT04202432, initial release date 16-12-2019 (retrospectively registered).
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Algoritmos / Pressão Arterial Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Monit Comput Assunto da revista: INFORMATICA MEDICA / MEDICINA Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Holanda País de publicação: Holanda

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Algoritmos / Pressão Arterial Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Monit Comput Assunto da revista: INFORMATICA MEDICA / MEDICINA Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Holanda País de publicação: Holanda