Comparison of three methods of measurement of pulmonary artery catheter readings in critically ill patients

Evaluation of the monitor cursor-line method for measuring pulmonary artery and central venous pressures

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the monitor cursor-line feature on bedside monitors is accurate for measuring central venous and pulmonary artery pressures in cardiac surgery patients.

METHODS

Central venous and pulmonary artery pressures were measured via 3 methods (end-expiratory graphic recording, monitor cursor-line display, and monitor digital display) in a convenience sample of postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Pressures were measured twice during both mechanical ventilation and spontaneous breathing. Analysis of variance was used to determine differences between measurement methods and the percentage of monitor pressures that differed by 4 mm Hg or more from the measurement obtained from the graphic recording. Significance level was set at P less than .05.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were studied during mechanical ventilation (50 measurements) and 21 patients during spontaneous breathing (42 measurements). Measurements obtained via the 3 methods did not differ significantly for either type of pressure (P > .05). Graphically recorded pressures and measurements obtained via the monitor cursor-line or digital display methods differed by 4 mm Hg or more in 4% and 6% of measurements, respectively, during mechanical ventilation and 4% and 11%, respectively, during spontaneous breathing.

CONCLUSION

The monitor cursor-line method for measuring central venous and pulmonary artery pressures may be a reasonable alternative to the end-expiratory graphic recording method in hemodynamically stable, postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Use of the digital display on the bedside monitor may result in larger discrepancies from the graphically recorded pressures than when the cursor-line method is used, particularly in spontaneously breathing patients.

Hemodynamic Assessment

Hemodynamic monitoring has become an integral component of the assessment of the critically ill. Any technology used for monitoring is a diagnostic tool and only as good as the provider interpreting the data. The article focuses on providing the practitioner the physiologic basis of the hemodynamic profile to cross the chasm of turning data into clinically useful information. Decision-making models are described to facilitate data synthesis and clinical intervention.

Comparison of pulmonary artery and central venous pressure waveform measurements via digital and graphic measurement methods

BACKGROUND

Techniques to measure pulmonary artery (PA) pressure waveforms include digital measurement, graphic measurement, and freeze-cursor measurement. Previous studies reported the inaccuracy of digital and freeze-cursor measurements. However, many of the previous studies were small and did not thoroughly examine the circumstances of when digital measurements might be inaccurate.

OBJECTIVES

To compare digital measurements and graphic measurements of PA and central venous pressure (CVP) waveforms in patients with a variety of respiratory patterns, and to compare digital measurements and graphic measurements of CVPs in patients with abnormal or right ventricular waveforms.

METHODS

A total of 928 patients were enrolled in this study. Waveforms from the PA and CVP were collected from each patient. The monitor pressure value (digital measurement) printed on the recorded waveform was compared with the pressure value obtained by a graphic strip recording and measured by one of the primary investigators (graphic measurement).

RESULTS

Digital measurements were found to be inaccurate in measuring waveforms in all respiratory categories and in measuring right ventricular waveforms. PA diastolic values and CVP values were the most inaccurately measured waveforms. Digital errors of more than 4 mm Hg were common.

CONCLUSION

There were instances in which the monitor's digital measurement was substantially different from the graphically measured value. This difference has the potential to mislead interpretation of clinical situations. The monitor's ability to occasionally give digital measurement values similar to the graphic measurements may lead to a false sense of security in clinicians. Because the accuracy of the monitor is inconsistent, the bedside clinician should interpret waveforms through use of a graphic recording rather than rely on the digital measurement on the monitor.