Measuring cardiac output in children undergoing cardiac catheterization: comparison between the Fick method and PRAM (pressure recording analytical method)
| Autor: | Jose Miguel Alonso-Iñigo, Francisco J. Escribá, Pilar Argente, José E. Llopis, María J. Fas, José I. Carrasco, José M. Galvis |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2016 |
| Předmět: |
Male
Cardiac output medicine.medical_specialty Cardiac Catheterization Adolescent medicine.medical_treatment Left heart catheterization Cardiac index Fick method 030204 cardiovascular system & hematology 03 medical and health sciences Hemodynamically stable 0302 clinical medicine 030202 anesthesiology Internal medicine medicine Humans Pressure recording Prospective Studies Cardiac Output Child Cardiac catheterization Monitoring Physiologic business.industry Limits of agreement Infant Newborn cardiac output Infant Reproducibility of Results pulse contour methods congenital heart disease Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine pediatric Child Preschool Pediatrics Perinatology and Child Health Cardiology Female business pressure recording analytical method |
| Zdroj: | PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA r-IIS La Fe. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica del Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe instname |
| ISSN: | 1155-5645 |
| Popis: | BackgroundPressure recording analytical method (PRAM) is a novel, arterial pulse contour method for measuring cardiac output (CO). Validation studies of PRAM in children are few, and have shown contradictory results. The aim of the study was to compare the MostCare((R))-PRAM vs the Fick method of cardiac output estimation (reference method). MethodsThis is a single-center, prospective observational study in 52 pediatric patients who underwent diagnostic right and left heart catheterization. Cardiac index (CI) measurements with the MostCare((R))-PRAM vs the Fick method were obtained under hemodynamically stable conditions. ResultsForty CI measurements were performed. The data showed good agreement between CIFick and CIPRAM: r(2) = 0.90 (P < 0.001), mean bias -0.075, limits of agreement from -0.56 to 0.41. The percentage error was 17%. Comparable results were obtained for patients |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Plný text