| Japanese |
|---|
| Title | 経典道的超音波ドップラー法と熱希釈法を用いた開心術麻酔時の心拍出量の検討 |
|---|
| Subtitle | 原著 |
|---|
| Authors | 横川すみれ* |
|---|
| Authors(kana) | |
|---|
| Organization | *東京女子医科大学麻酔学教室 |
|---|
| Journal | 循環制御 |
|---|
| Volume | 11 |
|---|
| Number | 3 |
|---|
| Page | 333-338 |
|---|
| Year/Month | 1990/ |
|---|
| Article | 原著 |
|---|
| Publisher | 日本循環制御医学会 |
|---|
| Abstract | 「要旨」経食道的超音波ドップラー心拍出量計と肺動脈カテーテルを用いた熱希釈法による心拍出量を同時測定し, 開心術患者において比較検討した. 対象は大動脈弁置換術, 僧帽弁置換術, および冠動脈再建術をうけた患者で, 総症例は20例で, 麻酔導入直後より測定を開始した. 心拍出量は大動脈弁置換術群と僧帽弁置換術群では体外循環前と後で両法の間に有意差(p<0.01)を認めたが冠動脈再建術群では認めなかった. 弁置換術症例では体外循環前は熱希釈法が低値を示す傾向があり, 体外循環後は熱希釈法と経食道的超音波ドップラー心拍出量計はほぼ等しい心拍出量値を示した. 冠動脈再建術群では心内血行動態に変化がないため体外循環前と後共に両法による心拍出量が高い相関を示したと思われる. |
|---|
| Practice | 基礎医学・関連科学 |
|---|
| Keywords | |
|---|
| English |
|---|
| Title | Clinical evaluation of two methods for cardiac output meas urements during cardiovascular anesthesia -Transesophageal doppler ultrasound and Thermodilution method by Swan-Gantz catheter- |
|---|
| Subtitle | |
|---|
| Authors | Sumire Yokokawa |
|---|
| Authors(kana) | |
|---|
| Organization | Department of Anesthesiology Tokyo Women's Medical College |
|---|
| Journal | Circulation Control |
|---|
| Volume | 11 |
|---|
| Number | 3 |
|---|
| Page | 333-338 |
|---|
| Year/Month | 1990/ |
|---|
| Article | Original article |
|---|
| Publisher | Japan Society of Circulation Control |
|---|
| Abstract | Cardiac output (CO) with transesophageal doppler ultrasound method by Lawrence 3000 (L), and thermodilution method (TD) by Swan-Gantz catheter were compaired during cardiac anesthesia. Patients were anesthetized with fentanyl-diazepam-O2 or air. Total 20 patients subjected to this study were divided into 3 groups, 7 patients underwent mitral valve replacement (MVR), 6 patients aortic valve replacement (AVR) and 7 patients coronary artery bypassgrafting (CABG). Measurements of CO were performed randomaly before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The results were statiscally analyzed by unpaired-t-test and p<0.05 or p<0.01 was considerd significant. Although CO measured by L and TD were sigriificantly different (p<0.05) before and after CPB in AVR and MVR, there were no difference before and after CPB in CABG. In AVR and MVR, CO measured by TD was lower than that measured by L before CPB. However, there was no significant difference after CPB, There was a good correlation between L and TD in CABG before and after CPB. |
|---|
| Practice | Basic medicine |
|---|
| Keywords | |
|---|