Residents and ICU nurses get reliable static and dynamic haemodynamic assessments with aortic oesophageal Doppler

Background Aortic oesophageal Doppler (ODM) allows continuous non‐invasive haemodynamic monitoring. We tested to confirm if residents and nurses were able to reposition oesophageal probe (OP), obtain aortic blood flow of good quality and so perform reliable static and dynamic haemodynamic assessment...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2012-04, Vol.56 (4), p.441-448
Hauptverfasser: ROBERT, J. M., FLOCCARD, B., CROZON, J., BOYLE, E. M., LEVRAT, A., GUILLAUME, C., BENATIR, F., FAURE, A., MARCOTTE, G., HAUTIN, E., ALLAOUCHICHE, B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Aortic oesophageal Doppler (ODM) allows continuous non‐invasive haemodynamic monitoring. We tested to confirm if residents and nurses were able to reposition oesophageal probe (OP), obtain aortic blood flow of good quality and so perform reliable static and dynamic haemodynamic assessments. Methods Prospective observational study assessing ODM measurements were obtained by six residents and three nurses after they have participated in training. Measured (aortic diameter) and calculated haemodynamic data [indexed stroke volume (SVI), cardiac index] were directly obtained from ODM, after residents and nurses repositioned the OP. In a second group of patients, we tested the ability of residents and nurses to detect rapid haemodynamic changes after a passive leg raising. SVI comparison was the primary end point. Statistical analysis was performed using the method of Bland and Altman. Results Sixty‐six haemodynamic measurements were performed on 42 patients. Mean bias for SVI between the skilled physician and residents, and between the skilled physician and nurses were −0.9 ± 5.2 ml/m2 (P = 0.15), with a percentage error of 31%, and 0.9 ± 5.1 ml/m2 (P = 0.14), with a percentage error of 33%, respectively. There was an excellent correlation for SVI between the physician and residents (r = 0.9; P 
ISSN:0001-5172
1399-6576
DOI:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02610.x