PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Based on the controversy surrounding pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) in surgical patients, we investigated the interchangeability of cardiac index (CI) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) measurements between ClearSight™ and PAC during living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).
This prospective study included consecutively selected LDLT patients. ClearSight™-based CI and SVR measurements were compared with those from PAC at seven LDLT-stage time points. ClearSight™-based systolic (SAP), mean (MAP), and diastolic (DAP) arterial pressures were also compared with those from femoral arterial catheterization (FAC). For the comparison and analysis of ClearSight™ and the reference method, Bland-Altman analysis was used to analyze accuracy while polar and four-quadrant plots were used to analyze the trending ability.
From 27 patients, 189 pairs of ClearSight™ and reference values were analyzed. The CI and SVR performance errors (PEs) exhibited poor accuracy between the two methods (51.52 and 51.73%, respectively) in the Bland-Altman analysis. CI and SVR also exhibited unacceptable trending abilities in both the polar and four-quadrant plot analyses. SAP, MAP, and DAP PEs between the two methods displayed favorable accuracy (24.28, 21.18, and 26.26%, respectively). SAP and MAP exhibited acceptable trending ability in the four-quadrant plot between the two methods, but not in the polar plot analyses.
During LDLT, CI and SVR demonstrated poor interchangeability, while SAP and MAP exhibited acceptable interchangeability between ClearSight™ and FAC.
This prospective study included consecutively selected LDLT patients. ClearSight™-based CI and SVR measurements were compared with those from PAC at seven LDLT-stage time points. ClearSight™-based systolic (SAP), mean (MAP), and diastolic (DAP) arterial pressures were also compared with those from femoral arterial catheterization (FAC). For the comparison and analysis of ClearSight™ and the reference method, Bland-Altman analysis was used to analyze accuracy while polar and four-quadrant plots were used to analyze the trending ability.
From 27 patients, 189 pairs of ClearSight™ and reference values were analyzed. The CI and SVR performance errors (PEs) exhibited poor accuracy between the two methods (51.52 and 51.73%, respectively) in the Bland-Altman analysis. CI and SVR also exhibited unacceptable trending abilities in both the polar and four-quadrant plot analyses. SAP, MAP, and DAP PEs between the two methods displayed favorable accuracy (24.28, 21.18, and 26.26%, respectively). SAP and MAP exhibited acceptable trending ability in the four-quadrant plot between the two methods, but not in the polar plot analyses.
During LDLT, CI and SVR demonstrated poor interchangeability, while SAP and MAP exhibited acceptable interchangeability between ClearSight™ and FAC.
摘要：
背景：基于围绕手术患者肺动脉导管插入术（PAC）的争议，我们研究了活体肝移植(LDLT)期间ClearSight™和PAC之间心脏指数(CI)和全身血管阻力(SVR)测量值的互换性.
方法：这项前瞻性研究包括连续选择的LDLT患者。在七个LDLT阶段时间点，将基于ClearSight™的CI和SVR测量值与PAC的测量值进行了比较。基于ClearSight™的收缩压(SAP)，平均（MAP），和舒张压（DAP）动脉压也与股动脉导管（FAC）进行了比较。为了比较和分析ClearSight™和参考方法，Bland-Altman分析用于分析准确性，而极地和四象限图用于分析趋势能力。
结果：来自27位患者，分析了189对ClearSight™和参考值。TheCI和SVR性能误差（PE）在两种方法之间表现出较差的准确性（51.52和51.73％，分别)在布兰德-奥特曼分析中。CI和SVR在极地和四象限图分析中也表现出不可接受的趋势能力。SAP,MAP,两种方法之间的DAPPE显示出良好的准确性（24.28、21.18和26.26％，分别)。SAP和MAP在两种方法之间的四象限图中表现出可接受的趋势能力，但不是在极坐标图分析中。
结论：在LDLT期间，CI和SVR的互换性较差，而SAP和MAP在ClearSight™和FAC之间表现出可接受的互换性。
方法：这项前瞻性研究包括连续选择的LDLT患者。在七个LDLT阶段时间点，将基于ClearSight™的CI和SVR测量值与PAC的测量值进行了比较。基于ClearSight™的收缩压(SAP)，平均（MAP），和舒张压（DAP）动脉压也与股动脉导管（FAC）进行了比较。为了比较和分析ClearSight™和参考方法，Bland-Altman分析用于分析准确性，而极地和四象限图用于分析趋势能力。
结果：来自27位患者，分析了189对ClearSight™和参考值。TheCI和SVR性能误差（PE）在两种方法之间表现出较差的准确性（51.52和51.73％，分别)在布兰德-奥特曼分析中。CI和SVR在极地和四象限图分析中也表现出不可接受的趋势能力。SAP,MAP,两种方法之间的DAPPE显示出良好的准确性（24.28、21.18和26.26％，分别)。SAP和MAP在两种方法之间的四象限图中表现出可接受的趋势能力，但不是在极坐标图分析中。
结论：在LDLT期间，CI和SVR的互换性较差，而SAP和MAP在ClearSight™和FAC之间表现出可接受的互换性。
