Advertisement

Comparison of arterial pressure waveform analysis with the lithium dilution technique to monitor cardiac output in anesthetized dogs

Hui Cheng ChenDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
Present address is Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor DE, Malaysia.

Search for other papers by Hui Cheng Chen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MVM
,
Melissa D SinclairDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Search for other papers by Melissa D Sinclair in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, DVSc
,
Doris H. DysonDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Search for other papers by Doris H. Dyson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, DVSc
,
Wayne N. McDonellDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Search for other papers by Wayne N. McDonell in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
, and
William C. SearsDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Search for other papers by William C. Sears in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MS, MSc

Abstract

Objective—To assess agreement between arterial pressure waveform–derived cardiac output (PCO) and lithium dilution cardiac output (LiDCO) systems in measurements of various levels of cardiac output (CO) induced by changes in anesthetic depth and administration of inotropic drugs in dogs.

Animals—6 healthy dogs.

Procedure—Dogs were anesthetized on 2 occasions separated by at least 5 days. Inotropic drug administration (dopamine or dobutamine) was randomly assigned in a crossover manner. Following initial calibration of PCO measurements with a LiDCO measurement, 4 randomly assigned treatments were administered to vary CO; subsequently, concurrent pairs of PCO and LiDCO measurements were obtained. Treatments included a light plane of anesthesia, deep plane of anesthesia, continuous infusion of an inotropic drug (rate adjusted to achieve a mean arterial pressure of 65 to 80 mm Hg), and continuous infusion of an inotropic drug (7 µg/kg/min).

Results—Significant differences in PCO and LiDCO measurements were found during deep planes of anesthesia and with dopamine infusions but not during the light plane of anesthesia or with dobutamine infusions. The PCO system provided higher CO measurements than the LiDCO system during deep planes of anesthesia but lower CO measurements during dopamine infusions.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The PCO system tracked changes in CO in a similar direction as the LiDCO system. The PCO system provided better agreement with LiDCO measurements over time when hemodynamic conditions were similar to those during initial calibration. Recalibration of the PCO system is recommended when hemodynamic conditions or pressure waveforms are altered appreciably. (Am J Vet Res 2005;66:1430–1436)

Abstract

Objective—To assess agreement between arterial pressure waveform–derived cardiac output (PCO) and lithium dilution cardiac output (LiDCO) systems in measurements of various levels of cardiac output (CO) induced by changes in anesthetic depth and administration of inotropic drugs in dogs.

Animals—6 healthy dogs.

Procedure—Dogs were anesthetized on 2 occasions separated by at least 5 days. Inotropic drug administration (dopamine or dobutamine) was randomly assigned in a crossover manner. Following initial calibration of PCO measurements with a LiDCO measurement, 4 randomly assigned treatments were administered to vary CO; subsequently, concurrent pairs of PCO and LiDCO measurements were obtained. Treatments included a light plane of anesthesia, deep plane of anesthesia, continuous infusion of an inotropic drug (rate adjusted to achieve a mean arterial pressure of 65 to 80 mm Hg), and continuous infusion of an inotropic drug (7 µg/kg/min).

Results—Significant differences in PCO and LiDCO measurements were found during deep planes of anesthesia and with dopamine infusions but not during the light plane of anesthesia or with dobutamine infusions. The PCO system provided higher CO measurements than the LiDCO system during deep planes of anesthesia but lower CO measurements during dopamine infusions.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The PCO system tracked changes in CO in a similar direction as the LiDCO system. The PCO system provided better agreement with LiDCO measurements over time when hemodynamic conditions were similar to those during initial calibration. Recalibration of the PCO system is recommended when hemodynamic conditions or pressure waveforms are altered appreciably. (Am J Vet Res 2005;66:1430–1436)