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
Objective: To compare the noninvasive estimated continuous cardiac output (esCCO), device-derived cardiac output (CO) to simultaneous pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) thermodilution (TD) CO.
Design: A prospective study comparing pulse wave transit time (estimated continuous cardiac output, esCCO; Nihon Kohden, Tokyo, Japan) to intermittent TD CO.
Setting: One academic hospital.
Participants: Patients presenting for cardiac surgery.
Interventions: Intraoperative CO measurements at 4 distinct time points (after induction, after sternotomy, after cardiopulmonary bypass, and after chest closure).
Measurements And Main Results: The study population consisted of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) IV subjects, 27 (77%) males and 8 (23%) females, with a mean age of 64.6 ± 12.2 years. Data points from esCCO and TD were collected simultaneously and means per time point compared using Bland-Altman, Pearson R coefficient, and percent error. Mean TD CO for the study was 5.4 L/min. The Pearson R coefficient, percent error, and bias in L/min were: 0.57, 44%, 0.66 (after induction); 0.54, 51%, 0.88 (after sternotomy); 0.60, 60%, 0.95 (after cardiopulmonary bypass); and 0.57, 60%, 0.75 (after chest closure) respectively.
Conclusions: esCCO is easy to use and provides continuous CO measurements, but has wide limits of agreement and large percentage errors with a consistently positive bias in comparison to TD.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2013.02.019 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!