摘要
目的:探讨无创心排出量(CO)监测在危重病患者中的应用价值。方法:选择本院呼吸与重症医学科(RICU)收治的危重病人共255例,对其进行无创CO监测,同时行心脏彩超检查,及脉搏指示连续心排血量技术(PiCCO)检查,比较三种方法所得的CO监测情况。结果:无创CO监测、心脏彩超检查、PiCCO检查测得到CO平均值分别是(5.07±2.14)L/min、(4.91±2.08)L/min、(5.14±2.16)L/min,经方差分析,三者差异非常显著(P<0.01)。对三种检测方法进行两两之间比较发现,与心脏彩超检查相比,无创心排出量监测、PiCCO检测的CO值显著升高(P<0.05,P<0.01),而无创心排出量监测与PiCCO检测的CO值无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论:无创心排出量监测与脉搏指示连续心排血量技术监测心排出量值分别优于心脏彩超检查(P<0.05,<0.01),且二者无显著差异,建议广泛应用于临床。
Objective： To explore the applicative value of noninvasive cardiac output （CO） monitoring in patients with critical illness. Methods： A total of 255 patients with critical illness admitted in respiratory intensive care unit （RICU） of our hospital were enrolled. They received noninvasive CO monitoring, echocardiography and pulse-indi-cated continuous cardiac output （PiCCO） examination at the same time. CO conditions monitored by these three methods were compared. Results： CO value of noninvasive CO monitoring, echocardiography and PiCCO were （5. 07 ± 2.14） L/min , （4.91 ± 2.08） L/min and （5.14 ± 2.16） L/min respectively. Analysis of variance indicated that differences of CO among three methods were very significant （P〈0.01）. Pairwise comparison among three methods indicated that compared with echocardiography, there was significant increase in CO detected by noninva- sive CO monitoring and PiCCO （P〈0.05, P〈0.01 respectively）, while there＇ s no significant difference in CO between noninvasive CO monitoring and PiCCO, P〉0.05. Conclusion： The CO detected by noninvasive CO moni-toring and PiCCO are better than that CO detected with echocardiography, suggested that former two methods should be worth extending in clinic.
出处
《心血管康复医学杂志》
CAS
2013年第5期489-491,共3页
Chinese Journal of Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Medicine
关键词
心排血量
危重病
诊断技术和方法
Cardiac output
Critical illness
Diagnostic techniques and procedures
