Dataset Information

Uncalibrated pulse power analysis fails to reliably measure cardiac output in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Uncalibrated arterial pulse power analysis has been recently introduced for continuous monitoring of cardiac index (CI). The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of arterial pulse power analysis with intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).

Methods

Forty-two patients scheduled for elective coronary surgery were studied after induction of anaesthesia, before and after CPB respectively. Each patient was monitored with the pulse contour cardiac output (PiCCO) system, a central venous line and the recently introduced LiDCO monitoring system. Haemodynamic variables included measurement of CI derived by transpulmonary thermodilution (CITPTD) or CI derived by pulse power analysis (CIPP), before and after calibration (CIPPnon-cal., CIPPcal.). Percentage changes of CI (ΔCITPTD, ΔCIPPnon-cal./PPcal.) were calculated to analyse directional changes.

Results

Before CPB there was no significant correlation between CIPPnon-cal. and CITPTD (r2 = 0.04, P = 0.08) with a percentage error (PE) of 86%. Higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) values were significantly correlated with higher CIPPnon-cal. (r2 = 0.26, P < 0.0001). After CPB, CIPPcal. revealed a significant correlation compared with CITPTD (r2 = 0.77, P < 0.0001) with PE of 28%. Changes in CIPPcal. (ΔCIPPcal.) showed a correlation with changes in CITPTD (ΔCITPTD) only after CPB (r2 = 0.52, P = 0.005).

Conclusions

Uncalibrated pulse power analysis was significantly influenced by MAP and was not able to reliably measure CI compared with TPTD. Calibration improved accuracy, but pulse power analysis was still not consistently interchangeable with TPTD. Only calibrated pulse power analysis was able to reliably track haemodynamic changes and trends.

SUBMITTER: Broch O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3222009 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background-Coronary endarterectomy (CEA) has been introduced to allow revascularization in end-stage coronary artery disease (CAD). After CEA, the injured remnants of the vessel's media could result in fast neo intimal tissue ingrowth, which require an anti-proliferation agent (antiplatelet therapy (APT). We aimed to review outcomes of patients undergoing CEA within bypass surgery who received either single-APT (SAPT) or dual-APT (DAPT). Methods-We retrospectively evaluated 353 consecutive patients undergoing CEA within isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the period 01/2000-07/2019. After surgery, patients received either SAPT (n = 153), or DAPT (n = 200) for six months then lifelong SAPT. Endpoints included early, late survival, and freedom from major-adverse-cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), which were defined as incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, need for coronary intervention (PCI or CABG) or death for any cause. Results-Patients' mean age was 67 ± 9.3 years; they were predominantly male 88.1%. Both DAPT- and SAPT-groups had the same extent of CAD (mean SYNTAX-Score-II: 34.1 ± 11.6 vs. 34.4 ± 17.2, p = 0.91). Postoperatively, no difference between DAPT- and SAPT-groups was reported in the incidence of low-cardiac-output syndrome (5% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.16), revision for bleeding (5% vs. 6.5% p = 0.64), 30-day mortality (4.5% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.8) or MACCE (7.5% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.19). Imaging follow-up reported significantly higher CEA and total grafts patency (90% vs. 81.5% and 95% vs. 81%, p = 0.017) in DAPT patients. Late outcomes within 97.4 ± 67.4 months show lower incidence of overall mortality (19 vs. 51%, p < 0.001) and MACCE (24.5 vs. 58.2%, p < 0.001) in the DAPT patients when compared with SAPT patients. Conclusions-Coronary endarterectomy allows revascularization in end-stage CAD when the myocardium is still viable. The use of dual APT after CEA for at least six months seems to improve mid-to-long-term patency rates and survival, and reduced the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac output (CO) is a key measure of adequacy of organ and tissue perfusion, especially in critically ill or complex surgical patients. CO monitoring technology continues to evolve. Recently developed CO monitors rely on unique algorithms based on pulse contour analysis of an arterial blood pressure (ABP) waveform. The objective of this investigation was to compare the accuracy of two monitors using different methods of pulse contour analysis - the Retia Argos device and the Edwards Vigileo-FloTrac device - with pulmonary artery catheter (PAC)-thermodilution as a reference.MethodsFifty-eight patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery formed the study cohort. A total of 572 triplets of CO measurements from each device - Argos, Vigileo-FloTrac (third generation), and thermodilution - were available before and after interventions (e.g., vasopressors, fluids, and inotropes). Bland-Altman analysis accounting for repeated measurements per subject and concordance analysis were applied to assess the accuracy of the CO values and intervention-induced CO changes of each pulse contour device against thermodilution. Cluster bootstrapping was employed to statistically compare the root-mean-squared-errors (RMSE = √(μ2 + σ2), where μ and σ are the Bland-Altman bias and precision errors) and concordance rates of the two devices.ResultsThe RMSE (mean (95% confidence intervals)) for CO values was 1.16 (1.00-1.32) L/min for the Argos device and 1.54 (1.33-1.77) L/min for the Vigileo-FloTrac device; the concordance rate for intervention-induced CO changes was 87 (82-92)% for the Argos device and 72 (65-78)% for the Vigileo-FloTrac device; and the RMSE for the CO changes was 17 (15-19)% for the Argos device and 21 (19-23)% for the Vigileo-FloTrac device (p < 0.0167 for all comparisons).ConclusionsIn comparison with CO measured by the PAC, the Argos device proved to be more accurate than the Vigileo-FloTrac device in CO trending and absolute CO measurement in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.

Project description:Low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality in patients with impaired left ventricular function.To assess the ability of preoperative levosimendan to prevent postoperative low cardiac output syndrome.Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 13 French cardiac surgical centers. Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 40% and scheduled for isolated or combined coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass were enrolled from June 2013 until May 2015 and followed during 6 months (last follow-up, November 30, 2015).Patients were assigned to a 24-hour infusion of levosimendan 0.1 µg/kg/min (n?=?167) or placebo (n?=?168) initiated after anesthetic induction.Composite end point reflecting low cardiac output syndrome with need for a catecholamine infusion 48 hours after study drug initiation, need for a left ventricular mechanical assist device or failure to wean from it at 96 hours after study drug initiation when the device was inserted preoperatively, or need for renal replacement therapy at any time postoperatively. It was hypothesized that levosimendan would reduce the incidence of this composite end point by 15% in comparison with placebo.Among 336 randomized patients (mean age, 68 years; 16% women), 333 completed the trial. The primary end point occurred in 87 patients (52%) in the levosimendan group and 101 patients (61%) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference taking into account center effect, -7% [95% CI, -17% to 3%]; P?=?.15). Predefined subgroup analyses found no interaction with ejection fraction less than 30%, type of surgery, and preoperative use of ?-blockers, intra-aortic balloon pump, or catecholamines. The prevalence of hypotension (57% vs 48%), atrial fibrillation (50% vs 40%), and other adverse events did not significantly differ between levosimendan and placebo.Among patients with low ejection fraction who were undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass, levosimendan compared with placebo did not result in a significant difference in the composite end point of prolonged catecholamine infusion, use of left ventricular mechanical assist device, or renal replacement therapy. These findings do not support the use of levosimendan for this indication.EudraCT Number: 2012-000232-25; clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02184819.

Project description:BackgroundThe intra aortic balloon pump (IABP) is a mechanical assist device which improves cardiac function. The device has a well-established place in algorithms for managing low cardiac output following cardiac surgery. There is increasing evidence that certain cardiac surgery patients benefit from a period of preoperative augmentation with the intra aortic balloon pump.ObjectivesTo determine the effect of the preoperative intra aortic balloon pump on mortality and morbidity in a number of different patients groups undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.Search strategyThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2009), MEDLINE (2000 to August 2009), EMBASE (1998 to August 2009), BIOSIS previews (1969 to August 2009) and ISI Proceedings (1990 to August 2009) were searched. References and ongoing registers of studies were checked. No language restrictions were applied.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any size or length were included.Data collection and analysisPapers were assessed for inclusion by two authors independently and differences were settled by consensus with a third author. Date are presented in the form of odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).Main resultsSix trials were included (five on-pump and one off-pump). This update adds the results of one further trial. Data from a total of 255 patients were included in the meta-analysis of mortality outcomes; all on-pump. Generally, the patients were considered as "high risk" and 132 were treated preoperatively with IABP and 123 served as controls. There were four hospital deaths in the intervention arm and 23 in the non-intervention arm (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.41; P<0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, low cardiac index (<2.0 L/min/m(2)) was noted in 21 out of 105 patients in the treatment arm and 59 patients out of 88 in the non-treatment arm (OR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.25; P<0.00001). An off-pump versus on-pump analysis was not possible due to the limited number of off-pump studies. However a single well-conducted RCT suggested favourable effect of the preoperative IABP in off-pump patients.Authors' conclusionsEvidence suggests that preoperative IABP may have a beneficial effect on mortality and morbidity in specific high risk patient groups undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, however there are many problems with the quality, validity and generalisability of the trials. However, the available evidence is not robust enough to extend the use of IABP to truly elective, high risk patients. Defining more precisely which patient groups may benefit would be the challenge for the future.