• José Marquez, Kenneth McCurry, Donald A Severyn, and Michael R Pinsky.
• Departments of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
• Crit. Care Med. 2008 Nov 1;36(11):3001-7.

IntroductionMeasures of arterial pulse pressure variation and left ventricular stroke volume variation induced by positive-pressure breathing vary in proportion to preload responsiveness. However, the accuracy of commercially available devices to report dynamic left ventricular stroke volume variation has never been validated.MethodsWe compared the accuracy of measured arterial pulse pressure and estimated left ventricular stroke volume reported from two Food and Drug Administration-approved aortic flow monitoring devices, one using arterial pulse power (LiDCOplus) and the other esophageal Doppler monitor (HemoSonic). We compared estimated left ventricular stroke volume and their changes during a venous occlusion and release maneuver to a calibrated aortic flow probe placed around the aortic root on a beat-to-beat basis in seven anesthetized open-chested cardiac surgery patients.ResultsDynamic changes in arterial pulse pressure closely tracked left ventricular stroke volume changes (mean r .96). Both devices showed good agreement with steady-state apneic left ventricular stroke volume values and moderate agreement with dynamic changes in left ventricular stroke volume (esophageal Doppler monitor -1 +/- 22 mL, and pulse power -7 +/- 12 mL, bias +/- 2 sd). In general, the pulse power signals tended to underestimate left ventricular stroke volume at higher left ventricular stroke volume values.ConclusionArterial pulse pressure, as well as, left ventricular stroke volume estimated from esophageal Doppler monitor and pulse power reflects short-term steady-state left ventricular stroke volume values and tract dynamic changes in left ventricular stroke volume moderately well in humans.

14 keywords...

hide…