Dataset Information

Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure.

ABSTRACT: 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 ➔ 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).

SUBMITTER: Meijs LPB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8011774 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Biofilms are the preferred sessile and matrix-embedded life form of most microorganisms on surfaces. In the medical field, biofilms are a frequent cause of treatment failure because they protect the bacteria from antibiotics and immune cells. Antibiotics are selected according to the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) based on the planktonic form of bacteria. Determination of the minimal biofilm eradicating concentration (MBEC), which can be up to 1,000-fold greater than the MIC, is not currently conducted as routine diagnostic testing, primarily because of the methodical hurdles of available biofilm assessing protocols that are time- and cost-consuming. Comparative analysis of biofilms is also limited as most quantitative methods such as crystal violet staining are indirect and highly imprecise. In this paper, we present a novel algorithm for assessing biofilm resistance to antibiotics that overcomes several of the limitations of alternative methods. This algorithm aims for a computer-based analysis of confocal microscope 3D images of biofilms after live/dead stains providing various biofilm parameters such as numbers of viable and dead cells and their vertical distributions within the biofilm, or biofilm thickness. The performance of this algorithm was evaluated using computer-simulated 2D and 3D images of coccal and rodent cells varying different parameters such as cell density, shading or cell size. Finally, genuine biofilms that were untreated or treated with nitroxoline or colistin were analyzed and the results were compared with quantitative microbiological standard methods. This novel algorithm allows a direct, fast and reproducible analysis of biofilms after live/dead staining. It performed well in biofilms of moderate cell densities in a 2D set-up however the 3D analysis remains still imperfect and difficult to evaluate. Nevertheless, this is a first try to develop an easy but conclusive tool that eventually might be implemented into routine diagnostics to determine the MBEC and to improve outcomes of patients with biofilm-associated infections.

Dataset Information

Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure