Skip to main content

Cardiac cycle efficiency as prognostic index in ICUs

Introduction

Cardiac cycle efficiency (CCE) can be calculated by the pressure recording analytical method (PRAM), a mini-invasive pulse-contour system that can provide beat-to-beat monitoring of cardiac output [1]. CCE is a new parameter that ranges from -1 to +1, with -1 being the worse and +1 the best possible performance of the cardiac cycle in terms of hemodynamic balance maintenance [2]. These characteristics make CCE a possible prognostic index, especially in critical patients who often present hemodynamic instability.

Methods

We recruited 157 consecutive patients admitted to the ICU undergoing hemodynamic monitoring, and the following parameters were registered in the first 24 hours from the admission: hemodynamic parameters (cardiac index, dp/dtmax and CCE) detected from the MostCare monitor (based on the PRAM algorithm), PaO2/FiO2 ratio, arterial lactates, SAPS II. We also divided the patients into seven diagnostic categories and take note of the outcome.

Results

We inserted all data into the logistic regression analysis model. The significant variables that take place in the regression equation included: SAPS II (P < 0.0001), lactates (P = 0.033), dp/dtmax (P = 0.032) and the diagnostic category (P = 0.020). CCE was not significant and was not included in the model. See Table 1.

Table 1 Results of logistic regression analysis

Conclusions

We demonstrate that CCE registered in the first 24 hours from admission is not a good prognostic index. The differences of CCE value between patients with good and negative outcome was not statistically significant. This result may suggest that a low CCE value in 24 hours from admission does not necessarily mean a bad outcome but, on the contrary, can be successfully improved by a therapeutic approach. It will be interesting to study whether there are some correspondences between CCE variations and modifications of the clinical conditions of the patients that may predict a positive or negative outcome.

References

  1. 1.

    Romano SM, et al.: Crit Care Med. 2002, 30: 1834-1841. 10.1097/00003246-200208000-00027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Scolletta S, et al.: Crit Care. 2008,12(Suppl 2):P249. 10.1186/cc6470

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A Donati.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Donati, A., Loggi, S., Scorcella, C. et al. Cardiac cycle efficiency as prognostic index in ICUs. Crit Care 15, P55 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc9475

Download citation

Keywords

  • Lactate
  • Cardiac Output
  • Logistic Regression Analysis
  • Cardiac Index
  • Diagnostic Category