Pulse contour analysis Is it able to reliably detect changes in cardiac output in the haemodynamically unstable patient 英文参考文献.docVIP

Critchley Critical Care 2011,15:106 /content/15/1/106 COMMENTARY Pulse contour analysis: Is it able to reliably detect changes in cardiac output in the haemodynamically unstable patient? Lester AH Critchley* See related research by Hadian et al., /content/14/6/R212 be susceptible to changes in peripheral resistance and the Abstract study protocol involved vasoconstrictor and vasodilator drugs, which may explain these poor trending results [4,5]. Three pulse contour systems for monitoring cardiac output – LiDCO Plus?, PiCCO Plus? and FloTrac? – were compared in postcardiac surgery patients. None of the three methods demonstrated good trending ability according to concordance analysis. Pulse contour systems remain unreliable in the haemodynamically unstable patient. is study helps to con? rm what is already suspected about the reliability of pulse contour devices; that these devices do not track changes in cardiac output reliably. Although there are many recent published studies evaluating pulse contour devices, the present one provides a very exacting examination and also compares the three main brands of pulse contour monitor In the previous issue of Critical Care Hadian and study could be faulted, however, because a now out of colleagues compare the performances of the three best date FloTrac?/Vigeleo software version was use known examples of pulse contour systems – LiDCO Plus?, PiCCO Plus? and FloTrac? – against thermo- low peripheral resistance states [4,5]. In response, e e FloTrac? has been criticised for failing to compensate for dilution [1]. An experimental design was used based on Edwards LifeSciences (Irvine, CA, USA) produced a new cardiac surgery patients in the ? rst 4 hours after surgery, third-generation software version (for example, version in which cardiac output was managed using four di? erent