Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27381733›Full record

ArticleJournal of Zhejiang University. Science. B2016

Femoral indicator injection for transpulmonary thermodilution using the EV1000/VolumeView(®): do the same criteria apply as for the PiCCO(®)?

Wolfgang Huber, Veit Phillip, Josef Höllthaler, Caroline Schultheiss, Bernd Saugel, Roland M Schmid

Open access · hybridAbstract readCase Reports
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. Transpulmonary thermodilution: advantages and limits.Critical care (London, England) · 2017
    Review
  8. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wolfgang HuberSecond Medical Department, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Veit PhillipSecond Medical Department, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Josef HöllthalerSecond Medical Department, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Caroline SchultheissSecond Medical Department, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Bernd SaugelSecond Medical Department, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Roland M SchmidSecond Medical Department, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Klinikum rechts der Isar · DETechnical University of Munich · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveComparison of global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) obtained by femoral and jugular transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) indicator injections using the EV1000/VolumnView(®) device (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA).

methodsIn an 87-year-old woman with hypovolemic shock and equipped with both jugular and femoral vein access and monitored with the EV1000/VolumeView(®) device, we recorded 10 datasets, each comprising duplicate TPTD via femoral access and duplicate TPTD (20 ml cold saline) via jugular access.

resultsMean femoral GEDVI ((674.6±52.3) ml/m(2)) was significantly higher than jugular GEDVI ((552.3±69.7) ml/m(2)), with P=0.003. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a bias of (+122±61) ml/m(2), limits of agreement of -16 and +260 ml/m(2), and a percentage error of 22%. Use of the correction-formula recently suggested for the PiCCO(®) device significantly reduced bias and percentage error. Similarly, mean values of parameters derived from GEDVI such as pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI; 1.244±0.101 vs. 1.522±0.139; P<0.001) and global ejection fraction (GEF; (24.7±1.6)% vs. (28.1±1.8)%; P<0.001) were significantly different in the case of femoral compared to jugular indicator injection. Furthermore, the mean cardiac index derived from femoral indicator injection ((4.50±0.36) L/(min·m²)) was significantly higher (P=0.02) than that derived from jugular indicator injection ((4.12±0.44) L/(min·m²)), resulting in a bias of (+0.38±0.37) L/(min·m²) and a percentage error of 19.4%.

conclusionsFemoral access for indicator injection results in markedly altered values provided by the EV1000/VolumeView(®), particularly for GEDVI, PVPI, and GEF.

Indexed as

Aged, 80 and overCapillary PermeabilityFemaleFemoral VeinHumansIndicators and ReagentsInjectionsLung Volume MeasurementsStroke VolumeThermodilutionIndicators and ReagentsCentral venous catheterEV1000/VolumeViewFemoral veinGlobal end-diastolic volumeHemodynamic monitoringJugular veinPiCCOTranspulmonary thermodilution

Identifiers

PMID27381733
PMCPMC4940632
OpenAlexW2474413015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.