English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Uncalibrated arterial pulse power analysis has been recently introduced for continuous monitoring of cardiac index (CI). The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of arterial pulse power analysis with intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).    Methods  Forty-two patients scheduled for elective coronary surgery were studied after induction of anaesthesia, before and after CPB respectively. Each patient was monitored with the pulse contour cardiac output (PiCCO) system, a central venous line and the recently introduced LiDCO monitoring system. Haemodynamic variables included measurement of CI derived by transpulmonary thermodilution (CI TPTD ) or CI derived by pulse power analysis (CI PP ), before and after calibration (CI PPnon-cal. , CI PPcal. ). Percentage changes of CI (ΔCI TPTD , ΔCI PPnon-cal./PPcal. ) were calculated to analyse directional changes.    Results  Before CPB there was no significant correlation between CI PPnon-cal.  and CI TPTD  (r 2  = 0.04,  P  = 0.08) with a percentage error (PE) of 86%. Higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) values were significantly correlated with higher CI PPnon-cal.  (r 2  = 0.26,  P  < 0.0001). After CPB, CI PPcal.  revealed a significant correlation compared with CI TPTD  (r 2  = 0.77,  P  < 0.0001) with PE of 28%. Changes in CI PPcal.  (ΔCI PPcal. ) showed a correlation with changes in CI TPTD  (ΔCI TPTD ) only after CPB (r 2  = 0.52,  P  = 0.005).    Conclusions  Uncalibrated pulse power analysis was significantly influenced by MAP and was not able to reliably measure CI compared with TPTD. Calibration improved accuracy, but pulse power analysis was still not consistently interchangeable with TPTD. Only calibrated pulse power analysis was able to reliably track haemodynamic changes and trends.

Uncalibrated pulse power analysis fails to reliably measure cardiac output in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery