Comparison of water manometry to 2 commercial electronic pressure monitors for central venous pressure measurement in horses

Norton, J. L., Nolen-Walston, R. D., Underwood, C., Slack, J., Boston, R. and Dallap, B. L. (2011) Comparison of water manometry to 2 commercial electronic pressure monitors for central venous pressure measurement in horses. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, 25 2: 303-306. doi:10.1111/j.1939-1676.2010.0670.x


Author Norton, J. L.
Nolen-Walston, R. D.
Underwood, C.
Slack, J.
Boston, R.
Dallap, B. L.
Title Comparison of water manometry to 2 commercial electronic pressure monitors for central venous pressure measurement in horses
Journal name Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0891-6640
1939-1676
Publication date 2011-03
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2010.0670.x
Open Access Status DOI
Volume 25
Issue 2
Start page 303
End page 306
Total pages 4
Place of publication Hoboken, NJ, United States
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing
Collection year 2011
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Background:
Central venous pressure (CVP) customarily has been measured in veterinary patients with water manometry. However, many institutions are now using stallside electronic monitors in both anesthesia and intensive care units for many aspects of patient monitoring.

Hypothesis:

Electronic stall side monitoring devices will agree with water manometry for measurement of CVP in horses.

Animals:
Ten healthy adult horses from the university research herd.

Methods:
Central venous catheters were placed routinely, and measurements were obtained in triplicate with each of the 3 methods every 12 hours for 3 days. Data were analyzed by a Lin concordance correlation coefficient and modified Bland-Altman limits of agreement, with all devices compared pairwise.

Results:
Compared with water manometry, agreement (bias) of the Passport was -1.94cmH2O (95% limits of agreement, -8.54 to 4.66cmH2O) and of the Medtronic was -1.83cmH2O (95% limits of agreement, -8.60 to 4.94cmH2O). When compared with the Passport, agreement of the data obtained with the Medtronic was 0.27cmH2O (95% limits of agreement, -4.39 to 4.93cmH2O).

Conclusions and Clinical Importance:

These data show that both electronic monitors systematically provide measurements that are approximately 2cmH2O lower than water manometry, but differences between the 2 electronic devices are small enough (< 0.5cmH2O) to be considered clinically unimportant. This discrepancy should be taken into account when interpreting data obtained with these monitoring devices. © 2011 by the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine.
Keyword Continuous monitoring
Hydration
Pressure transducer
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ
Additional Notes Article first published online: 31 JAN 2011

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Non HERDC
School of Veterinary Science Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 1 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 02 Mar 2011, 16:23:11 EST by Miss Claire Underwood on behalf of School of Veterinary Science