Advertisement

Intraoperative Monitoring

  • Gabriel E. MenaEmail author
  • Karthik Raghunathan
  • William T. McGee
Chapter

Abstract

Continuous automated ST-segment analysis during thoracic surgery is especially important given the potential for cardiac ischemia, arrhythmias, and hemodynamic instability. Oxygenation during one-lung ventilation is determined by many factors including cardiac output, blood pressure, ventilation-perfusion matching, anesthetic effects on hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, airway mechanics and reactivity, oxygen consumption, and preexisting pulmonary disease. Pulse oximetry with occasional intermittent arterial blood gas analysis provides warning of significant hypoxemia. The typical CO2 vs. time waveform, displayed on most anesthesia monitors, has characteristic intervals that represent different physiologic events during ventilation. Continuous breath-by-breath spirometry (monitoring of inspiratory and expiratory volumes, pressures, and flows) enables the early detection of a malpositioned double-lumen tube and can reduce the potential for ventilatory-induced lung injury by guiding the optimization of ventilatory settings. Invasive arterial pressure monitoring is commonly used to assess beat-by-beat blood pressure, and it can also be used to derive functional hemodynamic information. However, systolic pressure variation (SPV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) can reflect fluid responsiveness by measurement of cardiorespiratory interaction at controlled mechanical ventilation with tidal volumes >8 cc/kg, but most thoracic surgical operations are conducted with lower tidal volumes, and hence SVV and PPV do not have the ability to reveal fluid responsiveness. Minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring (such as the esophageal Doppler, arterial pressure waveform-based devices, and/or central venous oximetry) may be coupled with certain maneuvers to identify whether “flow (cardiac output) is adequate to meet global tissue demands” during and after surgery.

Keywords

Continuous ST-segment monitoring Minimally invasive monitoring Systolic pressure variation Pulse pressure variation Capnography Functional hemodynamics 

References

  1. 1.
    Wendon J. Cost effectiveness of monitoring techniques. In: Pinsky MR, Payen D, editors. Functional hemodynamic monitoring. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grocott MPW, Mythen MG, Gan TJ. Perioperative fluid management and clinical outcomes in adults. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:1093–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1368–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sandham JD, Hull RD, Brant RF, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of the use of pulmonary-artery catheters in high-risk surgical patients. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaplan J, Slinger P, editors. Thoracic anesthesia. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone; 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schroeder RA, Barbeito A, Bar-Yosef S, Mark JB. Cardiovascular monitoring. In: Miller R, Eriksson L, Fleisher L, Wiener-Kronish J, Young W, editors. Miller’s anesthesia. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone; 2010. p. 1267–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anesthesiology 1988 Aug;69(2):232-41. Intraoperative myocardial ischemia: localization by continuous 12-lead electrocardiography. London MJ1, Hollenberg M, Wong MG, Levenson L, Tubau JF, Browner W, Mangano DT.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Landesberg G, Mosseri M, Wolf Y, Vesselov Y, Weissman C. Perioperative myocardial ischemia and infarction. Identification by continuous 12-lead electrocardiogram with online ST-segment monitoring. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:264–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sgarbossa EB, Pinski SL, Barbagelata A, et al. Electrocardiographic diagnosis of evolving acute myocardial infarction in the presence of left bundle-branch block. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:481–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cannesson M, Delannoy B, Morand A, et al. Does the Pleth variability index indicate the respiratory-induced variation in the plethysmogram and arterial pressure waveforms? Anesth Analg. 2008;106(4):1189–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Natalini G, Rosano A, Taranto M, et al. Arterial versus plethysmographic dynamic indices to test responsiveness for testing fluid administration in hypotensive patients: a clinical trial. Anesth Analg. 2006;103(6):1478–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brodsky JB, Shulman MS, Swan M, Mark JBD (1985) Pulse oximetry during onelung ventilation. Anesthesiology 63:212—214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Perel A. Automated assessment of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. Anesth Analg. 2008;106(4):1031–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Lohser J. Evidence-based management of one-lung ventilation. Anesthesiol Clin. 2008;26:241–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Limmen JGM, Szegedi LL. Peri-operative spirometry: tool or gadget? Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2008;59:273–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pinsky MR, Payen D. Functional hemodynamic monitoring. Crit Care. 2005;9:566–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barbeito A, Mark JB. Arterial and central venous pressure monitoring. Anesthesiol Clin. 2006;24:717–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Courtois M, Fattal PG, Kovacs SJ Jr, et al. Anatomically and physiologically based reference level for measurement of intracardiac pressures. Circulation. 1995;92(7):1994–2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Magder S, Georgiadis G, Cheong T. Respiratory variations in right atrial pressure predict the response to fluid challenge. J Crit Care. 1992;7:76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marik P, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest. 2008;134:172–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network. Pulmonary-artery versus central venous catheter to guide treatment of acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2213–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Caterino U, Dialetto G, Covino FE, et al. The usefulness of transesophageal echocardiography in the staging of locally advanced lung cancer. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2007;67(1):39–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arthur ME, Landolfo C, Wade M, Castresana MR. Inferior vena cava diameter (IVCD) measured with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) can be used to derive the central venous pressure (CVP) in anesthetized mechanically ventilated patients. Echocardiography. 2009;26(2):140–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Michard F, Teboul JL. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121:2000–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gan TJ, Soppitt A, Maroof M, et al. Goal-directed intraoperative fluid administration reduces length of hospital stay after major surgery. Anesthesiology. 2002;97(4):820–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pearse R, Dawson D, Fawcett J, Rhodes A, Grounds M, Bennett D. Early goal-directed therapy after major surgery reduces complications and duration of hospital stay. A randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care. 2005;9:R687–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Donati A, Loggi S, Preiser J, Orsetti G, et al. Goal-directed intraoperative therapy reduces morbidity and length of hospital stay in high-risk surgical patients. Chest. 2007;132:1817–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Venn R, Steele A, Richardson P, et al. Randomized controlled trial to investigate influence of the fluid challenge on duration of hospital stay and perioperative morbidity in patients with hip fractures. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88:65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Diaper J, Ellenberger C, Villiger Y, et al. Transoesophageal Doppler monitoring for fluid and hemodynamic treatment during lung surgery. J Clin Monit Comput. 2008;22(5):367–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lobo S, Lobo F, Polachini C, Patini D, et al. Prospective, randomized trial comparing fluids and dobutamine optimization of oxygen delivery in high-risk surgical patients. Crit Care. 2006;10(R72):1–11.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lobo S, Salgado P, Castillo V, Borim A, et al. Effects of maximizing oxygen delivery on morbidity and mortality in high-risk surgical patients. Crit Care Med. 2000;28(10):3396–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Michard F. Changes in arterial pressure during mechanical ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:419–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Michard F, Boussat S, Chemla D, et al. Relation between respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure and fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;162:134–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Phan TD, Ismail H, Heriot AG, et al. Improving perioperative outcomes: fluid optimization with the esophageal Doppler monitor, a metaanalysis and review. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(6):935–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Slinger PD, Campos JH. Anesthesia for thoracic surgery. In: Miller RD, Eriksson LI, Fleisher LA, Wiener-Kronish JP, Young WL, editors. Miller’s anesthesia. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone; 2009.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Morgan P, Al-Subaie N, Rhodes A. Minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008;14:322–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    De Waal EC, Wappler F, Wolfgang F. Cardiac output monitoring. Curr Opin Anesthesiol. 2009;22:71–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Manecke GR, Auger WR. Cardiac output determination from the arterial pressure wave: clinical testing of a novel algorithm that does not require calibration. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2007;21:3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Breukers RM, Sepehrkhouy S, Spiegelenberg SR, et al. Cardiac output measured by a new arterial pressure waveform analysis method without calibration compared with thermodilution after cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2007;21:632–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mayer J, Boldt J, Wolf MW, et al. Cardiac output derived from arterial pressure waveform analysis in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: validity of a second generation device. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:867–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Scheeren TW, Wiesenack C, Compton FD, et al. Performance of a minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring system (Flotrac/Vigileo). Br J Anaesth. 2008;101:279–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mehta Y, Chand RK, Sawhney R, et al. Cardiac output monitoring: comparison of a new arterial pressure waveform analysis to the bolus thermodilution technique in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2008;22:394–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    McGee WT. A simple physiologic algorithm for managing hemodynamics using stroke volume and stroke volume variation. J Intensive Care Med. 2009;24(6):352–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Keren H, Burkhoff D, Squara P. Evaluation of a noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring system based on thoracic bioreactance. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2007 Jul;293(1):H583–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fuller HD. The validity of cardiac output measurement by cardiothoracic impedance: a meta-analysis. Clin Invest Med. 1992;15:103–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel E. Mena
    • 1
  • Karthik Raghunathan
    • 2
  • William T. McGee
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative MedicineThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Critical Care Division, Department of Medicine and SurgeryUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Baystate Medical CenterSpringfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations