PortalPublikationenFemoral indicator injection for transpulmonary thermodilutio...

Femoral indicator injection for transpulmonary thermodilution using the EV1000/VolumeView(®): do the same criteria apply as for the PiCCO(®)?

Standard

Femoral indicator injection for transpulmonary thermodilution using the EV1000/VolumeView(®): do the same criteria apply as for the PiCCO(®)? / Huber, Wolfgang; Phillip, Veit; Höllthaler, Josef; Schultheiss, Caroline; Saugel, Bernd; Schmid, Roland M.

in: J ZHEJIANG UNIV-SC B, Jahrgang 17, Nr. 7, 07.2016, S. 561-7.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung

Harvard

Huber, W, Phillip, V, Höllthaler, J, Schultheiss, C, Saugel, B & Schmid, RM 2016, 'Femoral indicator injection for transpulmonary thermodilution using the EV1000/VolumeView(®): do the same criteria apply as for the PiCCO(®)?', J ZHEJIANG UNIV-SC B, Jg. 17, Nr. 7, S. 561-7. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1500244

APA

Huber, W., Phillip, V., Höllthaler, J., Schultheiss, C., Saugel, B., & Schmid, R. M. (2016). Femoral indicator injection for transpulmonary thermodilution using the EV1000/VolumeView(®): do the same criteria apply as for the PiCCO(®)? J ZHEJIANG UNIV-SC B, 17(7), 561-7. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1500244

Vancouver

Huber W, Phillip V, Höllthaler J, Schultheiss C, Saugel B, Schmid RM. Femoral indicator injection for transpulmonary thermodilution using the EV1000/VolumeView(®): do the same criteria apply as for the PiCCO(®)? J ZHEJIANG UNIV-SC B. 2016 Jul;17(7):561-7. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1500244

Bibtex

@article{ea3476152e584839b820bf09b6b1ba96,
title = "Femoral indicator injection for transpulmonary thermodilution using the EV1000/VolumeView({\textregistered}): do the same criteria apply as for the PiCCO({\textregistered})?",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: Comparison of global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) obtained by femoral and jugular transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) indicator injections using the EV1000/VolumnView({\textregistered}) device (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA).METHODS: In an 87-year-old woman with hypovolemic shock and equipped with both jugular and femoral vein access and monitored with the EV1000/VolumeView({\textregistered}) device, we recorded 10 datasets, each comprising duplicate TPTD via femoral access and duplicate TPTD (20 ml cold saline) via jugular access.RESULTS: Mean femoral GEDVI ((674.6±52.3) ml/m(2)) was significantly higher than jugular GEDVI ((552.3±69.7) ml/m(2)), with P=0.003. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a bias of (+122±61) ml/m(2), limits of agreement of -16 and +260 ml/m(2), and a percentage error of 22%. Use of the correction-formula recently suggested for the PiCCO({\textregistered}) device significantly reduced bias and percentage error. Similarly, mean values of parameters derived from GEDVI such as pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI; 1.244±0.101 vs. 1.522±0.139; P<0.001) and global ejection fraction (GEF; (24.7±1.6)% vs. (28.1±1.8)%; P<0.001) were significantly different in the case of femoral compared to jugular indicator injection. Furthermore, the mean cardiac index derived from femoral indicator injection ((4.50±0.36) L/(min·m²)) was significantly higher (P=0.02) than that derived from jugular indicator injection ((4.12±0.44) L/(min·m²)), resulting in a bias of (+0.38±0.37) L/(min·m²) and a percentage error of 19.4%.CONCLUSIONS: Femoral access for indicator injection results in markedly altered values provided by the EV1000/VolumeView({\textregistered}), particularly for GEDVI, PVPI, and GEF.",
keywords = "Journal Article",
author = "Wolfgang Huber and Veit Phillip and Josef H{\"o}llthaler and Caroline Schultheiss and Bernd Saugel and Schmid, {Roland M}",
year = "2016",
month = jul,
doi = "10.1631/jzus.B1500244",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "561--7",
journal = "J ZHEJIANG UNIV-SC B",
issn = "1673-1581",
publisher = "Zhejiang University Press",
number = "7",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Femoral indicator injection for transpulmonary thermodilution using the EV1000/VolumeView(®): do the same criteria apply as for the PiCCO(®)?

AU - Huber, Wolfgang

AU - Phillip, Veit

AU - Höllthaler, Josef

AU - Schultheiss, Caroline

AU - Saugel, Bernd

AU - Schmid, Roland M

PY - 2016/7

Y1 - 2016/7

N2 - OBJECTIVE: Comparison of global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) obtained by femoral and jugular transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) indicator injections using the EV1000/VolumnView(®) device (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA).METHODS: In an 87-year-old woman with hypovolemic shock and equipped with both jugular and femoral vein access and monitored with the EV1000/VolumeView(®) device, we recorded 10 datasets, each comprising duplicate TPTD via femoral access and duplicate TPTD (20 ml cold saline) via jugular access.RESULTS: Mean femoral GEDVI ((674.6±52.3) ml/m(2)) was significantly higher than jugular GEDVI ((552.3±69.7) ml/m(2)), with P=0.003. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a bias of (+122±61) ml/m(2), limits of agreement of -16 and +260 ml/m(2), and a percentage error of 22%. Use of the correction-formula recently suggested for the PiCCO(®) device significantly reduced bias and percentage error. Similarly, mean values of parameters derived from GEDVI such as pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI; 1.244±0.101 vs. 1.522±0.139; P<0.001) and global ejection fraction (GEF; (24.7±1.6)% vs. (28.1±1.8)%; P<0.001) were significantly different in the case of femoral compared to jugular indicator injection. Furthermore, the mean cardiac index derived from femoral indicator injection ((4.50±0.36) L/(min·m²)) was significantly higher (P=0.02) than that derived from jugular indicator injection ((4.12±0.44) L/(min·m²)), resulting in a bias of (+0.38±0.37) L/(min·m²) and a percentage error of 19.4%.CONCLUSIONS: Femoral access for indicator injection results in markedly altered values provided by the EV1000/VolumeView(®), particularly for GEDVI, PVPI, and GEF.

AB - OBJECTIVE: Comparison of global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) obtained by femoral and jugular transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) indicator injections using the EV1000/VolumnView(®) device (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA).METHODS: In an 87-year-old woman with hypovolemic shock and equipped with both jugular and femoral vein access and monitored with the EV1000/VolumeView(®) device, we recorded 10 datasets, each comprising duplicate TPTD via femoral access and duplicate TPTD (20 ml cold saline) via jugular access.RESULTS: Mean femoral GEDVI ((674.6±52.3) ml/m(2)) was significantly higher than jugular GEDVI ((552.3±69.7) ml/m(2)), with P=0.003. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a bias of (+122±61) ml/m(2), limits of agreement of -16 and +260 ml/m(2), and a percentage error of 22%. Use of the correction-formula recently suggested for the PiCCO(®) device significantly reduced bias and percentage error. Similarly, mean values of parameters derived from GEDVI such as pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI; 1.244±0.101 vs. 1.522±0.139; P<0.001) and global ejection fraction (GEF; (24.7±1.6)% vs. (28.1±1.8)%; P<0.001) were significantly different in the case of femoral compared to jugular indicator injection. Furthermore, the mean cardiac index derived from femoral indicator injection ((4.50±0.36) L/(min·m²)) was significantly higher (P=0.02) than that derived from jugular indicator injection ((4.12±0.44) L/(min·m²)), resulting in a bias of (+0.38±0.37) L/(min·m²) and a percentage error of 19.4%.CONCLUSIONS: Femoral access for indicator injection results in markedly altered values provided by the EV1000/VolumeView(®), particularly for GEDVI, PVPI, and GEF.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1631/jzus.B1500244

DO - 10.1631/jzus.B1500244

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 27381733

VL - 17

SP - 561

EP - 567

JO - J ZHEJIANG UNIV-SC B

JF - J ZHEJIANG UNIV-SC B

SN - 1673-1581

IS - 7

ER -