| Title |
Comparison between pressure-recording analytical method (PRAM) and femoral arterial thermodilution method (FATD) cardiac output monitoring in an infant animal model of cardiac arrest
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40635-016-0087-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Javier Urbano, Jorge López, Rafael González, Sarah N. Fernández, María José Solana, Blanca Toledo, Ángel Carrillo, Jesús López-Herce |
| Abstract |
The pressure-recording analytical method is a new semi-invasive method for cardiac output measurement (PRAM). There are no studies comparing this technique with femoral artery thermodilution (FATD) in an infant animal model. A prospective study was performed using 25 immature Maryland pigs weighing 9.5 kg. Fifty-eight simultaneous measurements of cardiac index (CI) were made by FATD and PRAM at baseline and after return of spontaneous circulation. Differences, correlation, and concordance between both methods were analyzed. The ability of PRAM to track changes in CI was explored with a polar plot. Mean CI measurements were 4.5 L/min/m(2) (95 % CI, 4.2-4.8 L/min/m(2); coefficient of variation, 27 %) by FATD and 4.0 L/min/m(2) (95 % CI, 3.6-4.3 L/min/m(2); coefficient for variation, 37 %) by PRAM (difference, 0.5 L/min/m(2); 95 % CI for the difference, 0.1-1.0 L/min/m(2); p = 0.003; n = 58). No correlation between both methods was observed (r = 0.170, p = 0.20). Limits of agreement were -2.9 to 4.0 L/min/m(2) (-69.9 to 84.9 %). Percentage error was 80.6 %. Only 26.1 % of data points lied within an absolute deviation of ±30° from the polar axis. No correlation nor concordance between both methods was observed. Limits of agreement and percentage of error were high and clinically not acceptable. No concurrence between both methods in CI changes was observed. PRAM is not a useful method for measurement of the CI in this pediatric model of cardiac arrest. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 25% |
| Other | 2 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Librarian | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 25% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,377,214
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#265
of 448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,837
of 339,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.