Extravascular lung water measurements and hemodynamic monitoring in the critically ill: bedside alternatives to the pulmonary artery catheter

2006 ◽  
Vol 291 (6) ◽  
pp. L1118-L1131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warren Isakow ◽  
Daniel P. Schuster

The recently completed Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial conducted by the National Institutes of Health ARDSNetwork casts doubt on the value of routine pulmonary artery catheterization for hemodynamic management of the critically ill. Several alternatives are available, and, in this review, we evaluate the theoretical, validation, and empirical databases for two of these: transpulmonary thermodilution measurements (yielding estimates of cardiac output, intrathoracic blood volume, and extravascular lung water) that do not require a pulmonary artery catheter, and hemodynamic measurements (including estimates of cardiac output and ejection time, a variable sensitive to intravascular volume) obtained by esophageal Doppler analysis of blood flow through the descending aorta. We conclude that both deserve serious consideration as a means of acquiring useful hemodynamic data for managing shock and fluid resuscitation in the critically ill, especially in those with acute lung injury and pulmonary edema, but that additional study, including carefully performed, prospective clinical trials demonstrating outcome benefit, is needed.

2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milo Engoren ◽  
Daniel Barbee

• Background Cardiac output can be determined by using a variety of methods.• Objectives To determine the precision and bias between 3 methods for determining cardiac output: bioimpedance, thermodilution, and the Fick method.• Methods Cardiac output was determined by using bioimpedance via neck and thorax patches and thermodilution via pulmonary artery catheter in 46 patients in the intensive care unit. A subset of 15 patients also had cardiac output determined by using the Fick method.• Results Mean (SD) cardiac output in all patients was 6.3 (2.2) L/min by thermodilution and 5.6 (2.0) L/min by bioimpedance. In the 15 patients in whom all 3 methods were used, mean cardiac output was 6.0 (1.7) L/min by thermodilution, 5.3 (1.7) L/min by bioimpedance, and 8.6 (4.5) L/min by the Fick method. Bias and precision (mean difference ± 2 SDs) were 0.7 ± 2.9 L/min between thermodilution and bioimpedance, 1.7 ± 3.8 L/min between the Fick method and thermodilution, and 2.4 ± 4.7 L/min between the Fick method and bioimpedance.• Conclusion Bioimpedance, thermodilution, and Fick determinations of cardiac outputs are not interchangeable in a heterogenous population of critically ill patients.


1989 ◽  
Vol 71 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. A388
Author(s):  
R. G. Pearl ◽  
A. Ford ◽  
M. Nassi ◽  
T. Schuenemeyer ◽  
L. Neumann ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document