Assessment of ventricular function in critically ill patients: Limitationsof pulmonary artery catheterization

Citation
Ml. Fontes et al., Assessment of ventricular function in critically ill patients: Limitationsof pulmonary artery catheterization, J CARDIOTHO, 13(5), 1999, pp. 521-527
Citations number
33
Categorie Soggetti
Aneshtesia & Intensive Care
Journal title
JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA
ISSN journal
10530770 → ACNP
Volume
13
Issue
5
Year of publication
1999
Pages
521 - 527
Database
ISI
SICI code
1053-0770(199910)13:5<521:AOVFIC>2.0.ZU;2-I
Abstract
Objective: To determine the accuracy of conventional hemodynamic assessment using pulmonary artery catheter-derived data in critically ill patients. Design: Cohort study. Setting: Kaiser Permanente and Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Participants: Twenty-five consecutive patients who had undergone elective a ortocoronary bypass surgery. Measurements and Main Results: In the intensive care unit,conventional asse ssment (CA) was performed hourly by clinicians using conventional (radial a rtery and pulmonary artery) hemodynamic measurements from which left ventri cular (LV) function and intracardiac volume were estimated. Simultaneously, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) data were recorded on videotape, bl inded to the clinicians, and quantitatively analyzed off-line. TEE-determin ed LV function was classified as either normal (ejection fraction greater t han or equal to 40%) or abnormal (ejection fraction <40%) and intracardiac volume as normal (end-diastolic area = 8 to 22 cm(2)), low (end-diastolic a rea <8 cm(2)), or high (end-diastolic area >22 cm(2)). Conclusion: Evaluable data included 130 of 150 (87%) observations of simult aneously collected CA and TEE data, averaging 5.6 +/- 4.4 observations per patient. The overall predictive probability for conventional clinical asses sment of normal ventricular function was 98% (118/121), whereas for abnorma l ventricular function it was 0% (0/9). For CA of volume, the overall predi ctive probabilities for hypovolemia, normovolemia, and hypervolemia were 50 % (3/6), 60% (69/115), and 22% (2/9). Although conventional clinical assess ment of normal LV function in the intensive care unit correlates well with echocardiographic assessment, both LV dysfunction and extremes of preload ( hypovolemia or hypervolemia) are assessed poorly by clinicians using conven tional clinical monitoring with pulmonary artery catheterization. Copyright (C) 1999 by W.B. Saunders Company.