Pulmonary vascular permeability index and global end-diastolic volume: are the data consistent in patients with femoral venous access for transpulmonary thermodilution: a prospective observational study

BMC Anesthesiology

Research Article

Wolfgang Huber¹  Sebastian Mair¹  Helena Berbara¹  Analena Beitz¹  Roland M Schmid¹  Benedikt Henschel¹ 

[1] II. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Ismaninger Straße 22, D-81675, München, Germany;

关键词: Lung edema;    ARDS;    Extravascular lung water;    Pulmonary vascular permeability index;    Transpulmonary thermodilution;    Femoral venous catheter;    Hemodynamic monitoring;    Cardiac output;    Catheter site;    PiCCO;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2253-14-81

 received in 2014-04-13, accepted in 2014-09-11,  发布年份 2014

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundTranspulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) derived parameters are used to direct fluid management in ICU-patients. Extravascular lung water EVLW and its ratio to pulmonary blood volume (pulmonary vascular permeability index PVPI) have been associated with mortality. In single indicator TPTD pulmonary blood volume (PBV) is estimated to be 25% of global end-diastolic volume (GEDV). A recent study demonstrated marked overestimation of GEDV indexed to body-surface area (BSA; GEDVI) when using a femoral central venous catheter (CVC) for indicator injection due to the additional volume measured in the vena cava inferior. Therefore, a correction formula derived from femoral TPTD and biometric data has been suggested. Consequence, one of the commercially available TPTD-devices (PiCCO; Pulsion Medical Systems, Germany) requires information about CVC site. Correction of GEDVI for femoral CVC can be assumed. However, there is no data if correction also pertains to unindexed GEDV, which is used for calculation of PBV and PVPI. Therefore, we investigated, if also GEDV, PBV and PVPI are corrected by the new PiCCO-algorithm.MethodsIn this prospective study 110 triplicate TPTDs were performed within 30 hours in 11 adult ICU-patients with PiCCO-monitoring and femoral CVC. We analyzed if the femoral TPTD correction formula for GEDVI was also applied to correct GEDV. Furthermore, we compared PVPIdisplayed to PVPIcalculated which was calculated as EVLWdisplayed/(0.25*GEDVdisplayed).ResultsMultiplication of GEDVIdisplayed by BSA resulted in GEDVcalculated which was not significantly different to GEDVdisplayed (1459 ± 365 mL vs. 1459 ± 366 mL) suggesting that correction for femoral indicator injection also pertains to GEDVdisplayed. However, PVPIdisplayed was significantly lower than PVPIcalculated (1.64 ± 0.57 vs. 2.27 ± 0.72; p < 0.001). In addition to a bias of -0.64 ± 0.22 there was a percentage error of 22%. Application of the correction formula suggested for GEDVI to PVPIdisplayed reduced the bias of PVPIdisplayed compared to EVLW/PBV from -0.64 ± 0.22 to -0.10 ± 0.05 and the percentage error from 22% to 4%.ConclusionsCorrection for femoral CVC in the PiCCO-device pertains to both GEDVIdisplayed and GEDVdisplayed, but not to PVPIdisplayed. To provide consistent information, PVPI should be calculated based on GEDVcorrected in case of femoral CVC.

【 授权许可】

Unknown   
© Berbara et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.