PERBANDINGAN HASIL PENGUKURAN SVV DAN DO2 PADA PASIEN POST OPERASI MAYOR ANTARA ELECTRICAL CARDIOMETRY DENGAN PRESSURE- RECORDING ANALYTICAL METHOD DI ICU RSUP DR. SARDJITO
Keywords:
stroke volume variation, oxygen delivery, pressure recording analitycal method (PRAM), electrical cardiometry (EC), hemodynamic monitoringAbstract
Background: Assessment of intravascular volume adequacy remains challenging, as conventional methods such as clinical evaluation, central venous pressure, and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure have limited predictive value. Fluid responsiveness is commonly evaluated through heart–lung interactions during mechanical ventilation using stroke volume variation (SVV). Recently, less invasive monitoring techniques, including the pressure recording analytical method (PRAM) and non-invasive electrical cardiometry (EC), have been developed. Previous studies suggest that SVV monitoring during controlled mechanical ventilation accurately predicts fluid responsiveness.
Purpose: This study aimed to determine whether measurements of stroke volume variation (SVV) and oxygen delivery (DO2) obtained using electrical cardiometry are comparable to those measured by the pressure-recording analytical method (PRAM) in post–major surgery patients treated in the intensive care unit.
Methods: The observational study with cross sectional method, the study sample was 57 adult patients who were treated in the ICU Dr. Sardjito with age ≥ 18 years, post major surgery with an arterial line and central venous catheter (CVC). SVV and DO2 values was measured at the ICU using PRAM and EC.The collected data were be processed and analysed to compare between two of them using paired t test.
Results: In this study, the subjects who met the inclusion criteria were 57 patients. The result of SVV measurement on EC was 9.49 and with PRAM was 9.81 with a difference of 0.32 did not show a significant difference P=0.12 (P>.05). Likewise, the results of DO2 measurements on EC of 619.33 and PRAM of 652.81 there was a difference of 33.37 but did not show a significant difference of P=.06 (P>.05). At the heart rate 60-100 beats/minute, the result of the SVV measurement between EC and PRAM showeda significant difference with P=.03 (P<.05). At the heart rate <60 beats/minute, the result of DO2 measurement between EC and PRAM showed a significant difference with P=.003 (P<.05). At Hb after surgery <8 g/dl, the result of DO2 measurement between EC and PRAM showed a significant difference with P=.006 (P<.05).
Conclusion: The result of SVV and DO2 measurements between the electrical cardiometry and the pressure recording analytical method are not significantly different
References
1. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T, Hirani A. Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: A systematic review of the literature*: Critical Care Medicine. 2009 Sep;37(9):2642–7.
2. Kayilioglu SI, Dinc T, Sozen I, Bostanoglu A, Cete M, Coskun F. Postoperative fluid management. WJCCM. 2015;4(3):192.
3. Cherpanath TGV, Geerts BF, Lagrand WK, Schultz MJ, Groeneveld ABJ. Basic concepts of fluid responsiveness. Neth Heart J. 2013 Dec;21(12):530–6.
4. Cox PBW, den Ouden AM, Theunissen M, Montenij LJ, Kessels AGH, Lancé MD, et al. Accuracy, Precision, and Trending Ability of Electrical Cardiometry Cardiac Index versus Continuous Pulmonary Artery Thermodilution Method: A Prospective, Observational Study. Biomed Res Int [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Oct 29];2017. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5654291/
5. Tibby SM, Murdoch IA. Monitoring cardiac function in intensive care. Arch Dis Child. 2003 Jan;88(1):46–52.
6. Mercado P, Maizel J, Beyls C, Titeca-Beauport D, Joris M, Kontar L, et al. Transthoracic echocardiography: an accurate and precise method for estimating cardiac output in the critically ill patient. Crit Care. 2017 Jun 9;21(1):136.
7. Huygh J, Peeters Y, Bernards J, Malbrain MLNG. Hemodynamic monitoring in the critically ill: an overview of current cardiac output monitoring methods. F1000Research. 2016 Dec 16;5:2855.
8. Saugel B, Sakka SG. Editorial: Less and Non-invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring Techniques. Front Med. 2018 Sep 19;5:258.
9. Martinez G. WHAT IS STROKE VOLUME VARIATION (SVV)? [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021 May 20]. Available from: https://www.lidco.us/blog/what-is-stroke-volume- variation-svv
10. Li C, Lin F qing, Fu S kun, Chen G qiang, Yang X hu, Zhu C yan, et al. Stroke Volume Variation for Prediction of Fluid Responsiveness in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Surgery. Int J Med Sci. 2013;10(2):148–55.
11. Hameed SM, Aird WC, Cohn SM. Oxygen delivery. Critical Care Medicine. 2003 Dec;31(12):S658.
This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ )|57 - 58
Berkala Kesehatan Klinik, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2025: 43-58
12. Burtman DTM, Stolze A, Genaamd Dengler SEK, Vonk ABA, Boer C. Minimally Invasive Determinations of Oxygen Delivery and Consumption in Cardiac Surgery: An Observational Study. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018;32(3):1266–72.
13. Urbano J, López J, González R, Fernández SN, Solana MJ, Toledo B, et al. Comparison between pressure-recording analytical method (PRAM) and femoral arterial thermodilution method (FATD) cardiac output monitoring in an infant animal model of cardiac arrest. ICMx. 2016 Dec;4(1):13.
14. Barile L, Landoni G, Pieri M, Ruggeri L, Maj G, Nigro Neto C, et al. Cardiac Index Assessment by the Pressure Recording Analytic Method in Critically Ill Unstable Patients After Cardiac Surgery. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. 2013 Dec;27(6):1108–13.
15. Sanders M, Servaas S, Slagt C. Accuracy and precision of non-invasive cardiac output monitoring by electrical cardiometry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Monit Comput. 2020 Jun;34(3):433–60.
16. R S, D Z. Bedside Assessment of Preload in Acute Circulatory Failure Using Cardiac Velocimetry. J Med Diagn Meth [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Sep 26];5(3). Available from: https://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/bedside-assessment-of-preload-in- acute-circulatory-failure-using-cardiacvelocimetry-2168-9784- 1000222.php?aid=77163
17. Pulse Wave Analysis Using the Pressure Recording Analytical Method to Measure Cardiac Output in Pediatric Cardiac Surgery Patients [Internet]. Anesthesia Experts.
2022 [cited 2022 Oct 2]. Available from: https://anesthesiaexperts.com/uncategorized/pulse-wave-analysis-pressure- recording-analytical-method-measure-cardiac-output-pediatric-cardiac-surgery- patients-2/
18. Narula J, Chauhan S, Ramakrishnan S, Gupta SK. Electrical Cardiometry: A Reliable Solution to Cardiac Output Estimation in Children With Structural Heart Disease. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. 2017 Jun;31(3):912–7.
19. King J, Lowery DR. Physiology, Cardiac Output. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 [cited 2022 Sep 27]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470455/
20. Kazimierczyk R, Jasiewicz M, Marcinkiewicz-Siemion M, Knapp M, Lisowska A, Błaszczak P, et al. The pilot study of role of electrical cardiometry in non-invasive assessment of hemodynamic parameters in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (RCD code: II-1A.1). Journal of Rare Cardiovascular Diseases. 2017 Mar 31;3(2):44–9.
