Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1007/s10877-020-00636-2 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1007/s10877-020-00636-2 33791920!8011774!33791920     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=33791920&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215       J+Clin+Monit+Comput 2022 ; 36 (1): 191-198 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33791920|t=2022. Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure |pdf=|usr=}}{{33791920}} gab.com Text Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure JO: J Clin Monit Comput http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33791920 #FOAvip Mean systemic filling pressure (Pms) is a promising parameter in determining intravascular fluid status. Pms derived from venous return curves during inspiratory holds with incremental airway pressures (Pms-Insp) estimates Pms reliably but is labor-intensive. A computerized algorithm to calculate Pms (Pmsa) at the bedside has been proposed. In previous studies Pmsa and Pms-Insp correlated well but with considerable bias. This observational study was performed to validate Pmsa with Pms-Insp in cardiac surgery patients. Cardiac output, right atrial pressure and mean arterial pressure were prospectively recorded to calculate Pmsa using a bedside monitor. Pms-Insp was calculated offline after performing inspiratory holds. Intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC) and assessment of agreement were used to compare Pmsa with Pms-Insp. Bias, coefficient of variance (COV), precision and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated. Proportional bias was assessed with linear regression. A high degree of inter-method reliability was found between Pmsa and Pms-Insp (ICC 0.89; 95%CI 0.72-0.96, p = 0.01) in 18 patients. Pmsa and Pms-Insp differed not significantly (11.9 mmHg, IQR 9.8-13.4 vs. 12.7 mmHg, IQR 10.5-14.4, p = 0.38). Bias was -0.502 +/- 1.90 mmHg (p = 0.277). COV was 4% with LOA -4.22 - 3.22 mmHg without proportional bias. Conversion coefficient Pmsa ? Pms-Insp was 0.94. This assessment of agreement demonstrates that the measures Pms-Insp and the computerized Pmsa-algorithm are interchangeable (bias -0.502 +/- 1.90 mmHg with conversion coefficient 0.94). The choice of Pmsa is straightforward, it is non-interventional and available continuously at the bedside in contrast to Pms-Insp which is interventional and calculated off-line. Further studies should be performed to determine the place of Pmsa in the circulatory management of critically ill patients. ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ; TRN NCT04202432, release date 16-12-2019; retrospectively registered).Clinical Trial Registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov , TRN: NCT04202432, initial release date 16-12-2019 (retrospectively registered). Twit Text FOAVip Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure ????J Clin Monit Comput http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33791920 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33791920 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33791920}}</ref> Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure #MMPMID33791920 Meijs LPB; van Houte J; Conjaerts BCM; Bindels AJGH; Bouwman A; Houterman S; Bakker J J Clin Monit Comput 2022[Feb]; 36 (1): 191-198 PMID33791920show ga Mean systemic filling pressure (Pms) is a promising parameter in determining intravascular fluid status. Pms derived from venous return curves during inspiratory holds with incremental airway pressures (Pms-Insp) estimates Pms reliably but is labor-intensive. A computerized algorithm to calculate Pms (Pmsa) at the bedside has been proposed. In previous studies Pmsa and Pms-Insp correlated well but with considerable bias. This observational study was performed to validate Pmsa with Pms-Insp in cardiac surgery patients. Cardiac output, right atrial pressure and mean arterial pressure were prospectively recorded to calculate Pmsa using a bedside monitor. Pms-Insp was calculated offline after performing inspiratory holds. Intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC) and assessment of agreement were used to compare Pmsa with Pms-Insp. Bias, coefficient of variance (COV), precision and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated. Proportional bias was assessed with linear regression. A high degree of inter-method reliability was found between Pmsa and Pms-Insp (ICC 0.89; 95%CI 0.72-0.96, p = 0.01) in 18 patients. Pmsa and Pms-Insp differed not significantly (11.9 mmHg, IQR 9.8-13.4 vs. 12.7 mmHg, IQR 10.5-14.4, p = 0.38). Bias was -0.502 +/- 1.90 mmHg (p = 0.277). COV was 4% with LOA -4.22 - 3.22 mmHg without proportional bias. Conversion coefficient Pmsa ? Pms-Insp was 0.94. This assessment of agreement demonstrates that the measures Pms-Insp and the computerized Pmsa-algorithm are interchangeable (bias -0.502 +/- 1.90 mmHg with conversion coefficient 0.94). The choice of Pmsa is straightforward, it is non-interventional and available continuously at the bedside in contrast to Pms-Insp which is interventional and calculated off-line. Further studies should be performed to determine the place of Pmsa in the circulatory management of critically ill patients. ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ; TRN NCT04202432, release date 16-12-2019; retrospectively registered).Clinical Trial Registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov , TRN: NCT04202432, initial release date 16-12-2019 (retrospectively registered). |*Algorithms[MESH] |*Arterial Pressure[MESH] |Cardiac Output[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Monitoring, Physiologic[MESH]Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean syst(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing