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

Monitoring cardiac output (CO) may allow early detection of haemodynamic instability, aiming to reduce morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Continuous cardiac output (CCO) monitoring is recommended in septic or postoperative patients with high incidences of intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH). The aim of the present study was to compare the agreement between three CCO methods and a bolus thermodilution CO technique during acute IAH and volume loading.    Methods  Ten pigs were anaesthetised and instrumented for haemodynamic measurements. Cardiac output was obtained using CCO by pulse power analysis (PulseCO; LiDCO monitor), using CCO by pulse contour analysis (PCCO; PiCCO monitor) and using CCO by pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution (CCO PAC ), and was compared with bolus transcardiopulmonary thermodilution CO (CO TCP ) at baseline, after fluid loading, at IAH and after an additional fluid loading at IAH. Whereas PulseCO was only calibrated at baseline, PCCO was calibrated at each experimental step.    Results  PulseCO and PCCO underestimated CO, as the overall bias ± standard deviation was 1.0 ± 1.5 l/min and 1.0 ± 1.1 l/min compared with CO TCP . A clinically accepted agreement between all of the CCO methods and CO TCP  was observed only at baseline. Whereas IAH did not influence the CO, increased CO following fluid loading at IAH was only reflected by CCO PAC  and CO TCP , not by uncalibrated PulseCO and PCCO. After recalibration, PCCO was comparable with CO TCP .    Conclusions  The CO obtained by uncalibrated PulseCO and PCCO failed to agree with CO TCP  during IAH and fluid loading. In the critically ill patient, recalibration of continuous arterial waveform CO methods should be performed after fluid loading or before a major change in therapy is initiated.

Reliability of continuous cardiac output measurement during intra-abdominal hypertension relies on repeated calibrations: an experimental animal study