Comparison of pulmonary vascular permeability index PVPI and global ejection fraction GEF derived from jugular and femoral indicator injection using the PiCCO-2 device: A prospective observational study.

backgroundTranspulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) is used to derive cardiac output CO, global end-diastolic volume GEDV and extravascular lung water EVLW. To facilitate interpretation of these data, several ratios have been developed, including pulmonary vascular permeability index (defined as EVLW/(0.25*GEDV)) and global ejection fraction ((4*stroke volume)/GEDV). PVPI and GEF have been associated to the aetiology of pulmonary oedema and systolic cardiac function, respectively. Several studies demonstrated that the use of femoral venous access results in a marked overestimation of GEDV. This also falsely reduces PVPI and GEF. One of these studies suggested a correction formula for femoral venous access that markedly reduced the bias for GEDV. Consequently, the last PiCCO-algorithm requires information about the CVC, and correction for femoral access has been shown. However, two recent studies demonstrated inconsistencies of the last PiCCO algorithm using incorrected GEDV for PVPI, but corrected GEDV for GEF. Nevertheless, these studies were based on mathematical analyses of data displayed in a total of 15 patients equipped with only a femoral, but not with a jugular CVC. Therefore, this study compared PVPI_fem and GEF_fem derived from femoral TPTD to values derived from jugular indicator injection in 25 patients with both jugular and femoral CVCs.

methods54 datasets in 25 patients were recorded. Each dataset consisted of three triplicate TPTDs using the jugular venous access as the gold standard and the femoral access with (PVPI_fem_cor) and without (PVPI_fem_uncor) information about the femoral indicator injection to evaluate, if correction for femoral GEDV pertains to PVPI_fem and GEF_fem.

resultsPVPI_fem_uncor was significantly lower than PVPI_jug (1.48±0.47 vs. 1.84±0.53; p<0.001). Similarly, PVPI_fem_cor was significantly lower than PVPI_jug (1.49±0.46 vs. 1.84±0.53; p<0.001). This is explained by the finding that PVPI_fem_uncor was not different to PVPI_fem_cor (1.48±0.47 vs. 1.49±0.46; n.s.). This clearly suggests that correction for femoral CVC does not pertain to PVPI. GEF_fem_uncor was significantly lower than GEF_jug (20.6±5.1% vs. 25.0±6.1%; p<0.001). By contrast, GEF_fem_cor was not different to GEF_jug (25.6±5.8% vs. 25.0±6.1%; n.s.). Furthermore, GEF_fem_cor was significantly higher than GEF_fem_uncor (25.6±5.8% vs. 20.6±5.1%; p<0.001). This finding emphasizes that an appropriate correction for femoral CVC is applied to GEF_fem_cor. The extent of the correction (25.5/20.6; 124%) for GEF and the relation of PVPI_jug/PVPI_fem_uncor (1.84/1.48; 124%) are in the same range as the ratio of GEDVI_fem_uncor/GEDVI_fem_cor (1056ml/m2/821mL/m2; 129%). This further emphasizes that GEF, but not PVPI is corrected in case of femoral indicator injection.

conclusionsFemoral indicator injection for TPTD results in significantly lower values for PVPI and GEF. While the last PiCCO algorithm appropriately corrects GEF, the correction is not applied to PVPI. Therefore, GEF-values can be used in case of femoral CVC, but PVPI-values are substantially underestimated.