Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/8240
Citations
Scopus Web of ScienceĀ® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBolte, A.-
dc.contributor.authorDekker, G.-
dc.contributor.authorvan Eyck, J.-
dc.contributor.authorvan Schijndel, R.-
dc.contributor.authorvan Geijn, H.-
dc.date.issued2000-
dc.identifier.citationHypertension in Pregnancy, 2000; 19(3):261-271-
dc.identifier.issn1064-1955-
dc.identifier.issn1525-6065-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/8240-
dc.description.abstract<h4>Objective</h4>To establish if agreement exists between central venous pressure (CVP) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) measurements in severe hypertension in pregnancy as analyzed by tests of bias, precision, and 95% limits of agreement.<h4>Methods</h4>In a prospective study, CVP and PCWP data in 30 patients were collected by means of a pulmonary artery catheter from initiation of therapy until delivery. Patients with a diastolic blood pressure of more than 110 mm Hg were included. Correlation and agreement between CVP and PCWP before and after treatment were evaluated.<h4>Results</h4>The correlation coefficient (r) for CVP-PCWP data in 30 untreated patients was r = 0.64 (p = 0.0002) and for 256 pairs of posttreatment data, it was r = 0.53 (p < 0.0001). Linear regression and correlation for each individual patient in 29 patients with more than 3 measurements showed a significant correlation (p < 0.05) in 19 patients (66%). Correlation was poor (p > 0.05) in 10 patients (34%). The mean difference between PCWP and CVP was 3.5 +/- 2.6 mm Hg (limits of agreement: -1.6 to 8.7) in untreated patients. The mean difference between PCWP and CVP for 256 pairs of data derived posttreatment was 4.9 +/- 3.8 mm Hg (limits of agreement: -2.7 to 12. 5).<h4>Conclusion</h4>Invasive measurements of CVP and PCWP were found to agree poorly. Until a reliable noninvasive method is available to measure left ventricular preload, PCWP is the measurement of choice when invasive hemodynamic monitoring is necessary in patients with severe preeclampsia.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityAntoinette C. Bolte, Gustaaf A. Dekker, Jim van Eyck, Rob Strack van Schijndel, and Herman P. van Geijn-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherMarcel Dekker Inc-
dc.source.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1081/prg-100101987-
dc.subjectHumans-
dc.subjectPre-Eclampsia-
dc.subjectSuccinates-
dc.subjectGelatin-
dc.subjectMonitoring, Physiologic-
dc.subjectLinear Models-
dc.subjectSensitivity and Specificity-
dc.subjectProspective Studies-
dc.subjectPregnancy-
dc.subjectBlood Pressure-
dc.subjectPulmonary Wedge Pressure-
dc.subjectCentral Venous Pressure-
dc.subjectDiastole-
dc.subjectFemale-
dc.subjectBias-
dc.titleLack of agreement between central venous pressure and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure in preeclampsia-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.doi10.1081/PRG-100101987-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
dc.identifier.orcidDekker, G. [0000-0002-7362-6683]-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 4
Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.