Basic critical care echocardiography training of intensivists allows reproducible and reliable measurements of cardiac output.
Cardiac output
Critical care echocardiography
Pulmonary artery catheter
Pulsed-wave Doppler
Journal
The ultrasound journal
ISSN: 2524-8987
Titre abrégé: Ultrasound J
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101742146
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Apr 2019
16 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
10
09
2018
accepted:
15
02
2019
entrez:
31
7
2019
pubmed:
31
7
2019
medline:
31
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) have been the reference standard for calculating cardiac output, echocardiographic estimation of cardiac output (CO) by cardiologists has shown high accuracy compared to PAC measurements. A few studies have assessed the accuracy of echocardiographic estimation of CO in critically ill patients by intensivists with basic training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of CO measurements by intensivists with basic training using pulsed-wave Doppler ultrasound vs. PACs in critically ill patients. Critically ill patients who required hemodynamic monitoring with a PAC were eligible for the study. Three different intensivists with basic critical care echocardiography training obtained three measurements of CO on each patient. The maximum of three separate left-ventricular outflow tract diameter measurements and the mean of three LVOT velocity time integral measurements were used. The inter-observer reliability and correlation of CO measured by PACs vs. critical care echocardiography were assessed. A total of 20 patients were included. Data were analyzed comparing the measurements of CO by PAC vs. echocardiography. The inter-observer reliability for measuring CO by echocardiography was good based on a coefficient of intraclass correlation of 0.6 (95% CI 0.48-0.86, p < 0.001). Bias and limits of agreement between the two techniques were acceptable (0.64 ± 1.18 L/min, 95% limits of agreement of - 1.73 to 3.01 L/min). In patients with CO < 6.5 L/min, the agreement between CO measured by PAC vs. echocardiography improved (0.13 ± 0.89 L/min; 95% limits of agreement of - 1.64 to 2.22 L/min). The mean percentage of error between the two methods was 17%. Critical care echocardiography performed at the bedside by intensivists with basic critical care echocardiography training is an accurate and reproducible technique to measure cardiac output in critically ill patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) have been the reference standard for calculating cardiac output, echocardiographic estimation of cardiac output (CO) by cardiologists has shown high accuracy compared to PAC measurements. A few studies have assessed the accuracy of echocardiographic estimation of CO in critically ill patients by intensivists with basic training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of CO measurements by intensivists with basic training using pulsed-wave Doppler ultrasound vs. PACs in critically ill patients.
METHODS
METHODS
Critically ill patients who required hemodynamic monitoring with a PAC were eligible for the study. Three different intensivists with basic critical care echocardiography training obtained three measurements of CO on each patient. The maximum of three separate left-ventricular outflow tract diameter measurements and the mean of three LVOT velocity time integral measurements were used. The inter-observer reliability and correlation of CO measured by PACs vs. critical care echocardiography were assessed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 20 patients were included. Data were analyzed comparing the measurements of CO by PAC vs. echocardiography. The inter-observer reliability for measuring CO by echocardiography was good based on a coefficient of intraclass correlation of 0.6 (95% CI 0.48-0.86, p < 0.001). Bias and limits of agreement between the two techniques were acceptable (0.64 ± 1.18 L/min, 95% limits of agreement of - 1.73 to 3.01 L/min). In patients with CO < 6.5 L/min, the agreement between CO measured by PAC vs. echocardiography improved (0.13 ± 0.89 L/min; 95% limits of agreement of - 1.64 to 2.22 L/min). The mean percentage of error between the two methods was 17%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Critical care echocardiography performed at the bedside by intensivists with basic critical care echocardiography training is an accurate and reproducible technique to measure cardiac output in critically ill patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31359188
doi: 10.1186/s13089-019-0120-0
pii: 10.1186/s13089-019-0120-0
pmc: PMC6638616
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
5Références
Crit Care Med. 2002 Feb;30(2):362-7
pubmed: 11889311
Intensive Care Med. 2003 Feb;29(2):208-17
pubmed: 12541152
J Clin Monit Comput. 1999 Feb;15(2):85-91
pubmed: 12578081
Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2008 Oct 06;6:49
pubmed: 18837986
Chest. 2009 Apr;135(4):1050-1060
pubmed: 19188546
Intensive Care Med. 2011 Jul;37(7):1077-83
pubmed: 21614639
Am J Emerg Med. 2012 Nov;30(9):1845-51
pubmed: 22795411
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Dec;40(12):1795-815
pubmed: 25392034
Intensive Care Med. 2016 Aug;42(8):1223-33
pubmed: 26932349
Ann Intensive Care. 2016 Dec;6(1):44
pubmed: 27189084
Crit Care. 2017 Jun 9;21(1):136
pubmed: 28595621
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Chest. 2018 Jan;153(1):55-64
pubmed: 28866112
Crit Care. 2017 Nov 17;21(1):279
pubmed: 29149863
Crit Care Med. 1985 Oct;13(10):818-29
pubmed: 3928249
Br Heart J. 1984 Jan;51(1):54-60
pubmed: 6689921
Am J Cardiol. 1984 Jan 1;53(1):257-9
pubmed: 6691269
Circulation. 1983 Apr;67(4):872-7
pubmed: 6825242
J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol. 1981 Sep;51(3):584-91
pubmed: 7035418
Crit Care Med. 1995 Sep;23(9):1470-4
pubmed: 7664547
Am J Cardiol. 1995 Jun 15;75(17):1256-62
pubmed: 7778550
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1995 Feb;39(2):245-51
pubmed: 7793193
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995 Mar 1;25(3):710-6
pubmed: 7860918
Chest. 1994 Dec;106(6):1829-34
pubmed: 7988209
JAMA. 1996 Sep 18;276(11):889-97
pubmed: 8782638
Anaesth Intensive Care. 1997 Jun;25(3):250-4
pubmed: 9209605
Crit Care Med. 1997 Dec;25(12):2064-5
pubmed: 9403761
Med Clin (Barc). 1998 Feb 7;110(4):142-5
pubmed: 9541905
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998 Jul;158(1):77-83
pubmed: 9655710
Crit Care Med. 1998 Nov;26(11):1793-800
pubmed: 9824069