Transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD)-derived global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) is a static marker of preload which better predicted volume responsiveness compared to filling pressures in several studies. GEDVI can be generated with at least two devices: PiCCO and EV-1000. Several studies showed that uncorrected indicator injection into a femoral central venous catheter (CVC) results in a significant overestimation of GEDVI by the PiCCO-device. Therefore, the most recent PiCCO-algorithm corrects for femoral indicator injection. However, there are no systematic data on the impact of femoral indicator injection for the EV-1000 device. Furthermore, the correction algorithm of the PiCCO is poorly validated. Therefore, we prospectively analyzed 14 datasets from 10 patients with TPTD-monitoring undergoing central venous catheter (CVC)- and arterial line exchange. PiCCO was replaced by EV-1000, femoral CVCs were replaced by jugular/subclavian CVCs and vice-versa. For PiCCO, jugular and femoral indicator injection derived GEDVI was comparable when the correct information about femoral catheter site was given (p = 0.251). By contrast, GEDVI derived from femoral indicator injection using the EV-1000 was obviously not corrected and was substantially higher than jugular GEDVI measured by the EV-1000 (846 ± 250 vs. 712 ± 227 ml/m²; p = 0.001). Furthermore, measurements of GEDVI were not comparable between PiCCO and EV-1000 even in case of jugular indicator injection (p = 0.003). This is most probably due to different indexations of the raw value GEDV. EV-1000 could not be recommended to measure GEDVI in case of a femoral CVC. Furthermore, different indexations used by EV-1000 and PiCCO should be considered even in case of a jugular CVC when comparing GEDVI derived from PiCCO and EV-1000.

经肺热稀​​释（TPTD）得出的全球舒张末期总体积指数（GEDVI）是预负荷的静态标记，在多项研究中，与充盈压相比，它能更好地预测容积响应。GEDVI可以使用至少两种设备生成：PiCCO和EV-1000。几项研究表明，未经校正的指示剂注入股骨中央静脉导管（CVC）会导致PiCCO装置显着高估GEDVI。因此，最新的PiCCO算法可校正股骨指标注射。但是，没有关于股骨影响的系统性数据EV-1000设备的指示器注入。此外，PiCCO的校正算法验证不充分。因此，我们前瞻性分析了10例接受中心静脉导管（CVC）和动脉线置换术的TPTD监测患者的14个数据集。PiCCO替换为EV-1000，股骨CVC替换为颈/锁骨下CVC，反之亦然。对于PiCCO，当给出有关股动脉导管部位的正确信息时，颈动脉和股骨指示剂注射的GEDVI是可比的（p  = 0.251）。相比之下，GEDVI来自股骨使用EV-1000进行指示剂注射显然没有得到纠正，并且远高于通过EV-1000测量的颈静脉GEDVI（846±250 vs. 712±227 ml / m ²；p  = 0.001）。此外，即使在颈静脉注射指示剂的情况下，PiCCO和EV-1000的GEDVI测量值也不具有可比性（p  = 0.003）。这很可能是由于原始值GEDV的索引不同。如果股骨CVC，建议不要使用EV-1000测量GEDVI 。此外，在比较来自PiCCO和EV-1000的GEDVI时，即使在颈静脉CVC的情况下，也应考虑EV-1000和PiCCO使用的不同索引。