Does Predictors of Preload Measured from Continuous Right Ventricular End-diastolic Volume Index Monitored Pulmonary Artery Catheter Reflect Stroke Volume Index in Off Pump Coronary Artery Bypass?.
10.4097/kjae.2007.53.2.206
- Author:
Young Lan KWAK
1
;
Young Ju WON
;
Jong Hwa LEE
;
Jae Kwang SHIM
;
Sou Ouk BANG
;
Ji Yeon LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ylkwak@yumc.yonsei.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery;
right ventricular end-diastolic volume index;
stroke volume index;
volumetric pulmonary artery catheter
- MeSH:
Catheters*;
Central Venous Pressure;
Coronary Artery Bypass, Off-Pump*;
Hand;
Hemodynamics;
Humans;
Linear Models;
Pulmonary Artery*;
Sternum;
Stroke Volume*;
Stroke*
- From:Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
2007;53(2):206-211
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: It is important to assess cardiac preload for management of patients undergoing off pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB). Recently, several studies have documented the good correlation between right ventricular end-diastolic volume index (RVEDVI) and stroke volume index (SVI), compared with cardiac filling pressures. However, none of these studies have evaluated relationship between predictors of preload and SVI measured with volumetric pulmonary artery catheter during OPCAB. The correlation of continuous RVEDVI and SVI measured with volumetric pulmonary artery catheter during OPCAB was evaluated in this study. METHODS: Fifty three patients undergoing OPCAB were included. Hemodynamic parameters were measured 10 min after induction (T1), 10 min after Y-graft formation started (T2) and 10 min after sternum closure (T3). The correlation of parameters were assessed by simple linear regression. RESULTS: Central venous pressure (CVP) and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) did not correlate with SVI during OPCAB. On the other hand, a statistically significant result was found between RVEDVI and SVI at T2 (r(2)=0.133, P=0.007) and T3 (r(2)=0.380, P < 0.000). But RVEDVI and SVI were weakly correlated. And at T1, RVEDVI and SVI did not correlate. CONCLUSIONS: RVEDVI is a more reliable predictor of preload compared to CVP and PAOP during OPCAB. But in post-induction period (T2), RVEDVI did not correlate with SVI.
