8 �� 2.2, P = 0.031), GEDVIfem (rm = 0.87; b = 0.42 �� 0.05, P < 0.001) and GEDVIjug (rm = 0.58; b = 0.32 �� 0.11, P = 0.005). Furthermore, co-linearity of height and BW was demonstrated SRT1720 - Develop Into A Guru In just 8 Straightforward Tasks, Estrogen Receptor inhibitor : Turn Out To Be An Guru In Ten Effortless Tasks with ideal BW (IBW) as the parameter with the strongest association to the difference (GEDVIfem-GEDVIjug). Therefore, GEDVIfem, CIfem and IBW were included in generalized linear models to characterize factors independently associated with the difference (GEDVIfem-GEDVIjug). The final model including GEDVIfem (P < 0.001), CIfem (P = 0.011) and IBW (P = 0.162) resulted in the prediction formula of GEDVIjug with the highest predictive capability (adjusted r2 = 0.75) (Figure (Figure44):Figure 4Femoral global end-diastolic volume index corrected by the correction formula.
Scatter plot illustrating the predictive capability of the correction formula of jugular global end-diastolic volume index (adjusted r2 = 0.75). GEDVIjug, jugular global end-diastolic ...(GEDVIjug, jugular global end-diastolic volume index (mL/m2); GEDVIfem, femoral global end-diastolic volume index (mL/m2); CIfem, femoral cardiac index (L/min/m2); IBW, ideal body weight (kg)).We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy for prediction of elevated GEDVIjug (>800 mL/m2) and decreased GEDVIjug (<680 mL/m2) based on uncorrected GEDVIfem, GEDVIfem corrected by subtraction of the mean bias of +241 mL/m2 as well as GEDVIfem corrected by the correction formula (Table (Table3).3).
Although even uncorrected GEDVIfem resulted in acceptable predictive capabilities, correction resulted in further improvement of the prediction of GEDVIjug.Table 3Predictive capabilities of uncorrected and corrected femoral global end-diastolic volume indexTo evaluate the usefulness of the correction formula derived from the first 24 patients following the study period we studied five more consecutive patients with superior and inferior vena cava access at the same time as a control population (four males, one female; mean age 57.2 �� 9.0 years, mean height 178 �� 13 cm, mean weight 93.6 �� 20.2 kg; two patients died on ICU, three patients survived ICU stay, reason for ICU admission: pancreatitis in two patients, cirrhosis of the liver in two patients, pneumonia in one patient). Mean GEDVIfem and GEDVIjug in these patients was 896 �� 126 mL/m2 and 720 �� 76 mL/m2, respectively.
The mean difference between GEDVIfem and GEDVIjug (bias) in this control group was 20% of GEDVIfem (176 mL/m2). In this group correction of GEDVIfem by subtraction of the mean bias of +241 mL/m2 (mean bias in the study group) resulted in a reduction of the mean difference to 7% (65 mL/m2). A further reduction of the bias to 6% (50 mL/m2) was achieved using the correction formula. Uncorrected GEDVIfem had a diagnostic accuracy for prediction of elevated GEDVIjug (>800 mL/m2) and decreased GEDVIjug (<680 mL/m2) of only 20%.