A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Agreement of cardiac output measurement between pulse contour analysis and thermodilution in various body positions: a porcine study. | LitMetric

Background: We elucidated the effects of various body positions on the agreement of cardiac output (CO) measurement between pulse contour analysis with the PiCCO monitor and thermodilution with pulmonary artery catheterization.

Methods: Fifteen anesthetized and mechanically ventilated pigs (40 ± 2 kg) were sequentially placed in various positions to facilitate simultaneous CO measurement. Between-methods agreement was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. Trending ability was assessed using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient analysis.

Results: In supine, reverse Trendelenburg, Trendelenburg, and left lateral decubitus (lateral) positions, CO measured by these two methods was comparable (4.9 ± 1.5 versus 4.6 ± 1.6 L/min, 4.6 ± 2.2 versus 4.8 ± 1.8 L/min, 5.1 ± 2.1 versus 4.9 ± 2.1 L/min, and 5.4 ± 1.8 versus 5.0 ± 1.6 L/min; all P > 0.05). Mean bias between methods and limits of agreement (percentage error) were 0.3 ± 2.9 L/min (61%), -0.3 ± 3.3 L/min (71%), 0.1 ± 4.1 L/min (77%), and 0.5 ± 3.7 L/min (71%). Directional changes of paired CO revealed 66% (reverse Trendelenburg), 57% (Trendelenburg), and 66% (lateral) concordance. The correlation coefficient (r(2)) was 0.199, 0.127, and 0.108. For paired CO ≤6 L/min, mean bias between methods and limits of agreement (percentage error) were 0.2 ± 1.0 L/min (25%), -0.1 ± 1.0 L/min (28%), 0.2 ± 1.1 L/min (29%), and 0.5 ± 0.9 L/min (23%). Directional changes of paired CO revealed 84% (reverse Trendelenburg), 76% (Trendelenburg), and 65% (lateral) concordance. The correlation coefficient (r2) was 0.583, 0.626, and 0.213.

Conclusions: The mean CO measured by pulse contour analysis and thermodilution did not agree well in various body positions. Moreover, the measurements tended to trend differently in response to positional changes. For paired CO ≤6 L/min, however, the between-methods agreement and the trending ability improved significantly.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.07.012DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

versus l/min
16
l/min
14
pulse contour
12
contour analysis
12
body positions
12
correlation coefficient
12
reverse trendelenburg
12
l/min versus
12
changes paired
12
agreement cardiac
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!