Dataset Information

Comparison of global end-diastolic volume index derived from jugular and femoral indicator injection: a prospective observational study in patients equipped with both a PiCCO-2 and an EV-1000-device.

ABSTRACT: Transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD)-derived global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) is a static marker of preload which better predicted volume responsiveness compared to filling pressures in several studies. GEDVI can be generated with at least two devices: PiCCO and EV-1000. Several studies showed that uncorrected indicator injection into a femoral central venous catheter (CVC) results in a significant overestimation of GEDVI by the PiCCO-device. Therefore, the most recent PiCCO-algorithm corrects for femoral indicator injection. However, there are no systematic data on the impact of femoral indicator injection for the EV-1000 device. Furthermore, the correction algorithm of the PiCCO is poorly validated. Therefore, we prospectively analyzed 14 datasets from 10 patients with TPTD-monitoring undergoing central venous catheter (CVC)- and arterial line exchange. PiCCO was replaced by EV-1000, femoral CVCs were replaced by jugular/subclavian CVCs and vice-versa. For PiCCO, jugular and femoral indicator injection derived GEDVI was comparable when the correct information about femoral catheter site was given (p?=?0.251). By contrast, GEDVI derived from femoral indicator injection using the EV-1000 was obviously not corrected and was substantially higher than jugular GEDVI measured by the EV-1000 (846?±?250 vs. 712?±?227 ml/m²; p?=?0.001). Furthermore, measurements of GEDVI were not comparable between PiCCO and EV-1000 even in case of jugular indicator injection (p?=?0.003). This is most probably due to different indexations of the raw value GEDV. EV-1000 could not be recommended to measure GEDVI in case of a femoral CVC. Furthermore, different indexations used by EV-1000 and PiCCO should be considered even in case of a jugular CVC when comparing GEDVI derived from PiCCO and EV-1000.

SUBMITTER: Herner A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7695713 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of global end-diastolic volume index derived from jugular and femoral indicator injection: a prospective observational study in patients equipped with both a PiCCO-2 and an EV-1000-device.

Herner Alexander A Heilmaier Markus M Mayr Ulrich U Schmid Roland M RM Huber Wolfgang W

Scientific reports 20201127 1

Transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD)-derived global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) is a static marker of preload which better predicted volume responsiveness compared to filling pressures in several studies. GEDVI can be generated with at least two devices: PiCCO and EV-1000. Several studies showed that uncorrected indicator injection into a femoral central venous catheter (CVC) results in a significant overestimation of GEDVI by the PiCCO-device. Therefore, the most recent PiCCO-algorithm c ...[more]

PMID: 33247165

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTranspulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) is used to derive cardiac output CO, global end-diastolic volume GEDV and extravascular lung water EVLW. To facilitate interpretation of these data, several ratios have been developed, including pulmonary vascular permeability index (defined as EVLW/(0.25*GEDV)) and global ejection fraction ((4*stroke volume)/GEDV). PVPI and GEF have been associated to the aetiology of pulmonary oedema and systolic cardiac function, respectively. Several studies demonstrated that the use of femoral venous access results in a marked overestimation of GEDV. This also falsely reduces PVPI and GEF. One of these studies suggested a correction formula for femoral venous access that markedly reduced the bias for GEDV. Consequently, the last PiCCO-algorithm requires information about the CVC, and correction for femoral access has been shown. However, two recent studies demonstrated inconsistencies of the last PiCCO algorithm using incorrected GEDV for PVPI, but corrected GEDV for GEF. Nevertheless, these studies were based on mathematical analyses of data displayed in a total of 15 patients equipped with only a femoral, but not with a jugular CVC. Therefore, this study compared PVPI_fem and GEF_fem derived from femoral TPTD to values derived from jugular indicator injection in 25 patients with both jugular and femoral CVCs.Methods54 datasets in 25 patients were recorded. Each dataset consisted of three triplicate TPTDs using the jugular venous access as the gold standard and the femoral access with (PVPI_fem_cor) and without (PVPI_fem_uncor) information about the femoral indicator injection to evaluate, if correction for femoral GEDV pertains to PVPI_fem and GEF_fem.ResultsPVPI_fem_uncor was significantly lower than PVPI_jug (1.48±0.47 vs. 1.84±0.53; p<0.001). Similarly, PVPI_fem_cor was significantly lower than PVPI_jug (1.49±0.46 vs. 1.84±0.53; p<0.001). This is explained by the finding that PVPI_fem_uncor was not different to PVPI_fem_cor (1.48±0.47 vs. 1.49±0.46; n.s.). This clearly suggests that correction for femoral CVC does not pertain to PVPI. GEF_fem_uncor was significantly lower than GEF_jug (20.6±5.1% vs. 25.0±6.1%; p<0.001). By contrast, GEF_fem_cor was not different to GEF_jug (25.6±5.8% vs. 25.0±6.1%; n.s.). Furthermore, GEF_fem_cor was significantly higher than GEF_fem_uncor (25.6±5.8% vs. 20.6±5.1%; p<0.001). This finding emphasizes that an appropriate correction for femoral CVC is applied to GEF_fem_cor. The extent of the correction (25.5/20.6; 124%) for GEF and the relation of PVPI_jug/PVPI_fem_uncor (1.84/1.48; 124%) are in the same range as the ratio of GEDVI_fem_uncor/GEDVI_fem_cor (1056ml/m2/821mL/m2; 129%). This further emphasizes that GEF, but not PVPI is corrected in case of femoral indicator injection.ConclusionsFemoral indicator injection for TPTD results in significantly lower values for PVPI and GEF. While the last PiCCO algorithm appropriately corrects GEF, the correction is not applied to PVPI. Therefore, GEF-values can be used in case of femoral CVC, but PVPI-values are substantially underestimated.

Project description:Background:Previous research has examined patient perceptions of insulin injection devices. However, a range of injectable medications other than insulin are now used to treat type 2 diabetes. No patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments have been developed taking into account the perceptions of patients using newer injection devices, which are often different from those used in the past. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to evaluate a new PRO instrument focusing on patients' experiences with injection devices, including those used for newer treatments such as GLP-1 receptor agonists. Methods:Patients with T2D treated with non-insulin injectable medications were recruited via advertisements and six clinical sites in the US. All participants completed the draft Diabetes Injection Device - Experience Questionnaire (DID-EQ) and additional measures administered for validity assessment. Participants who had experience with two non-insulin injection devices also completed the draft Diabetes Injection Device - Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ). Analyses focused on item reduction (item performance, exploratory factor analysis), reliability, and validity. Results:One hundred fourty two patients (mean age?=?63.0y; 56.3% female) participated. Item reduction yielded a 10-item version of the DID-EQ, including a 7-item Device Characteristics subscale and three global items assessing satisfaction, ease of use, and convenience of the injection device. The DID-EQ demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha of Device Characteristics subscale?=?0.80) and 7-day test-retest reliability (ICCs: 0.92 for Device Characteristics subscale; 0.65 to 0.91 for the three global items). Construct validity was demonstrated via correlations with previously validated instruments (e.g., correlations with the DTSQ treatment satisfaction subscale ranged from 0.56 to 0.60, all p?<?0.0001; correlations with the TRIM-D Device ranged from 0.63 to 0.77, all p?<?0.0001). Descriptive analyses of the DID-PQ were conducted with a subset of 27 participants who were able to use it to compare two devices. Conclusions:This psychometric evaluation supports the reliability and validity of the DID-EQ, while providing initial information on the performance of the DID-PQ. These brief questionnaires complement measures of treatment efficacy and provide a more thorough picture of patients' experiences with non-insulin injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes.

Project description:The ideal local anesthetic regime for femoral nerve block that balances analgesia with mobility after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains undefined.We compared two volumes and concentrations of a fixed dose of ropivacaine for continuous femoral nerve block after TKA to a single injection femoral nerve block with ropivacaine to determine (1) time to discharge readiness; (2) early pain scores and analgesic consumption; and (3) functional outcomes, including range of motion and WOMAC scores at the time of recovery.Ninety-nine patients were allocated to one of three continuous femoral nerve block groups for this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial: a high concentration group (ropivacaine 0.2% infusion), a low concentration group (ropivacaine 0.1% infusion), or a placebo infusion group (saline 0.9% infusion). Infusions were discontinued on postoperative Day (POD) 2. The primary outcome was time to discharge readiness. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption, pain, and functional outcomes. Ninety-three patients completed the study protocol; the study was halted early because of unanticipated changes to pain protocols at the host institution, by which time only 61% of the required number of patients had been enrolled.With the numbers available, the mean time to discharge readiness was not different between groups (high concentration group, 62 hours [95% confidence interval [CI], 51-72 hours]; low concentration group, 73 hours [95% CI, 63-83 hours]; placebo infusion group 65 hours [95% CI, 56-75 hours]; p = 0.27). Patients in the low concentration group consumed significantly less morphine during the period of infusion (POD 1, high concentration group, 56 mg [95% CI, 42-70 mg]; low concentration group, 35 mg [95% CI, 27-43 mg]; placebo infusion group, 48 mg [95% CI, 38-59 mg], p = 0.02; POD 2, high concentration group, 50 mg [95% CI, 41-60 mg]; low concentration group, 33 mg [95% CI, 24-42 mg]; placebo infusion group, 39 mg [95% CI, 30-48 mg], p = 0.04); however, there were no important differences in pain scores or opioid-related side effects with the numbers available. Likewise, there were no important differences in functional outcomes between groups.Based on this study, which was terminated prematurely before the desired sample size could be achieved, we were unable to demonstrate that varying the concentration and volume of a fixed-dose ropivacaine infusion for continuous femoral nerve block influences time to discharge readiness when compared with a conventional single-injection femoral nerve block after TKA. A low concentration of ropivacaine infusion can reduce postoperative opioid consumption but without any important differences in pain scores, side effects, or functional outcomes. These pilot data may be used to inform the statistical power of future randomized trials.Level II, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Dataset Information

Comparison of global end-diastolic volume index derived from jugular and femoral indicator injection: a prospective observational study in patients equipped with both a PiCCO-2 and an EV-1000-device.

Publications

Comparison of global end-diastolic volume index derived from jugular and femoral indicator injection: a prospective observational study in patients equipped with both a PiCCO-2 and an EV-1000-device.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets