Dataset Information

Accuracy of Cardiac Output by Nine Different Pulse Contour Algorithms in Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Comparison with Transpulmonary Thermodilution.

ABSTRACT: Objective. Today, there exist several different pulse contour algorithms for calculation of cardiac output (CO). The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of nine different pulse contour algorithms with transpulmonary thermodilution before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Methods. Thirty patients scheduled for elective coronary surgery were studied before and after CPB. A passive leg raising maneuver was also performed. Measurements included CO obtained by transpulmonary thermodilution (COTPTD) and by nine pulse contour algorithms (COX1-9). Calibration of pulse contour algorithms was performed by esophageal Doppler ultrasound after induction of anesthesia and 15?min after CPB. Correlations, Bland-Altman analysis, four-quadrant, and polar analysis were also calculated. Results. There was only a poor correlation between COTPTD and COX1-9 during passive leg raising and in the period before and after CPB. Percentage error exceeded the required 30% limit. Four-quadrant and polar analysis revealed poor trending ability for most algorithms before and after CPB. The Liljestrand-Zander algorithm revealed the best reliability. Conclusions. Estimation of CO by nine different pulse contour algorithms revealed poor accuracy compared with transpulmonary thermodilution. Furthermore, the less-invasive algorithms showed an insufficient capability for trending hemodynamic changes before and after CPB. The Liljestrand-Zander algorithm demonstrated the highest reliability. This trial is registered with NCT02438228 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

SUBMITTER: Broch O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5225324 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy of Cardiac Output by Nine Different Pulse Contour Algorithms in Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Comparison with Transpulmonary Thermodilution.

Broch Ole O Bein Berthold B Gruenewald Matthias M Masing Sarah S Huenges Katharina K Haneya Assad A Steinfath Markus M Renner Jochen J

BioMed research international 20161228

<i>Objective.</i> Today, there exist several different pulse contour algorithms for calculation of cardiac output (CO). The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of nine different pulse contour algorithms with transpulmonary thermodilution before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). <i>Methods.</i> Thirty patients scheduled for elective coronary surgery were studied before and after CPB. A passive leg raising maneuver was also performed. Measurements included CO obtained by tra ...[more]

PMID: 28116294

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCardiac output (CO) is a key measure of adequacy of organ and tissue perfusion, especially in critically ill or complex surgical patients. CO monitoring technology continues to evolve. Recently developed CO monitors rely on unique algorithms based on pulse contour analysis of an arterial blood pressure (ABP) waveform. The objective of this investigation was to compare the accuracy of two monitors using different methods of pulse contour analysis - the Retia Argos device and the Edwards Vigileo-FloTrac device - with pulmonary artery catheter (PAC)-thermodilution as a reference.MethodsFifty-eight patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery formed the study cohort. A total of 572 triplets of CO measurements from each device - Argos, Vigileo-FloTrac (third generation), and thermodilution - were available before and after interventions (e.g., vasopressors, fluids, and inotropes). Bland-Altman analysis accounting for repeated measurements per subject and concordance analysis were applied to assess the accuracy of the CO values and intervention-induced CO changes of each pulse contour device against thermodilution. Cluster bootstrapping was employed to statistically compare the root-mean-squared-errors (RMSE = √(μ2 + σ2), where μ and σ are the Bland-Altman bias and precision errors) and concordance rates of the two devices.ResultsThe RMSE (mean (95% confidence intervals)) for CO values was 1.16 (1.00-1.32) L/min for the Argos device and 1.54 (1.33-1.77) L/min for the Vigileo-FloTrac device; the concordance rate for intervention-induced CO changes was 87 (82-92)% for the Argos device and 72 (65-78)% for the Vigileo-FloTrac device; and the RMSE for the CO changes was 17 (15-19)% for the Argos device and 21 (19-23)% for the Vigileo-FloTrac device (p < 0.0167 for all comparisons).ConclusionsIn comparison with CO measured by the PAC, the Argos device proved to be more accurate than the Vigileo-FloTrac device in CO trending and absolute CO measurement in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.

Project description:Cardiac output measurement with pulse contour analysis is a continuous, mini-invasive, operator-independent, widely used, and cost-effective technique, which could be helpful to assess changes in cardiac output. The 4-quadrant plot and the polar plot have been described to compare the changes between 2 measurements performed under different conditions, and the direction of change by using different methods of measurements. However, the 4-quadrant plot and the polar plot present a number of limitations, with a risk of misinterpretation in routine clinical practice. We describe a new trend interchangeability method designed to objectively define the interchangeability of each change of a variable. Using the repeatability of the reference method, we classified each change as either uninterpretable or interpretable and then as either noninterchangeable, in the gray zone or interchangeable. An interchangeability rate can then be calculated by the number of interchangeable changes divided by the total number of interpretable changes. In this observational study, we used this objective method to assess cardiac output changes with 5 arterial pulse contour techniques (Wesseling's method, LiDCO, PiCCO, Hemac method, and Modelflow) in comparison with bolus thermodilution technique as reference method in 24 cardiac surgery patients. A total of 172 cardiac output variations were available from the 199 data points: 88 (51%) were uninterpretable, according to the first step of the method. The second step of the method, based on the 84 (49%) interpretable variations, showed that only 18 (21%) to 30 (36%) variations were interchangeable regardless of the technique used. None of pulse contour cardiac output technique could be interchangeable with bolus thermodilution to assess changes in cardiac output using the trend interchangeability method in cardiac surgery patients. Future studies may consider using this method to assess interchangeability of changes between different methods of measurements.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac output (CO) monitoring is the basis of goal-directed treatment for major abdominal surgery. A capnodynamic method estimating cardiac output (COEPBF) by continuously calculating nonshunted pulmonary blood flow has previously shown good agreement and trending ability when evaluated in mechanically ventilated pigs.ObjectivesTo compare the performance of the capnodynamic method of CO monitoring with transpulmonary thermodilution (COTPTD) in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.DesignProspective, observational, method comparison study. Simultaneous measurements of COEPBF and COTPTD were performed before incision at baseline and before and after increased (+10 cmH2O) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), activation of epidural anaesthesia and intra-operative events of hypovolemia and low CO. The first 25 patients were ventilated with PEEP 5 cmH2O (PEEP5), while in the last 10 patients, lung recruitment followed by individual PEEP adjustment (PEEPadj) was performed before protocol start.SettingKarolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.PatientsIn total, 35 patients (>18 years) scheduled for major abdominal surgery with advanced hemodynamic monitoring were included in the study.Main outcome measures and analysisAgreement and trending ability between COEPBF and COTPTD at different clinical moments were analysed with Bland--Altman and four quadrant plots.ResultsIn total, 322 paired values, 227 in PEEP5 and 95 in PEEPadj were analysed. Respectively, the mean COEPBF and COTPTD were 4.5 ± 1.0 and 4.8 ± 1.1 in the PEEP5 group and 4.9 ± 1.2 and 5.0 ± 1.0 l min-1 in the PEEPadj group. Mean bias (levels of agreement) and percentage error (PE) were -0.2 (-2.2 to 1.7) l min-1 and 41% for the PEEP5 group and -0.1 (-1.7 to 1.5) l min-1 and 31% in the PEEPadj group. Concordance rates during changes in COEPBF and COTPTD were 92% in the PEEP5 group and 90% in the PEEPadj group.ConclusionCOEPBF provides continuous noninvasive CO estimation with acceptable performance, which improved after lung recruitment and PEEP adjustment, although not interchangeable with COTPTD. This method may become a tool for continuous intra-operative CO monitoring during general anaesthesia in the future.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03444545.

Project description:BackgroundWe tested the effect of different blood flow levels in the extracorporeal circuit on the measurements of cardiac stroke volume (SV), global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) and extravascular lung water index derived from transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) in 20 patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) treated with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).MethodsComparative SV measurements with transesophageal echocardiography and TPTD were performed at least 5 times during the treatment of the patients. The data were interpreted with a Bland-Altman analysis corrected for repeated measurements. The interchangeability between both measurement modalities was calculated and the effects of extracorporeal blood flow on SV measurements with TPTD was analysed with a linear mixed effect model. GEDVI and EVLWI measurements were performed immediately before the termination of the ECMO therapy at a blood flow of 6 l/min, 4 l/min and 2 l/min and after the disconnection of the circuit in 7 patients.Results170 pairs of comparative SV measurements were analysed. Average difference between the two modalities (bias) was 0.28 ml with an upper level of agreement of 40 ml and a lower level of agreement of -39 ml within a 95% confidence interval and an overall interchangeability rate between TPTD and Echo of 64%. ECMO blood flow did not influence the mean bias between Echo and TPTD (0.03 ml per l/min of ECMO blood flow; p = 0.992; CI - 6.74 to 6.81). GEDVI measurement was not significantly influenced by the blood flow in the ECMO circuit, whereas EVLWI differed at a blood flow of 6 l/min compared to no ECMO flow (25.9 ± 10.1 vs. 11.0 ± 4.2 ml/kg, p = 0.0035).ConclusionsIrrespectively of an established ECMO therapy, comparative SV measurements with Echo and TPTD are not interchangeable. Such caveats also apply to the interpretation of EVLWI, especially with a high blood flow in the extracorporeal circulation. In such situations, the clinician should rely on other methods of evaluation of the amount of lung oedema with the haemodynamic situation, vasopressor support and cumulative fluid balance in mind.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00021050). Registered 03/30/2020 https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00017237.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of Cardiac Output by Nine Different Pulse Contour Algorithms in Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Comparison with Transpulmonary Thermodilution.

Publications

Accuracy of Cardiac Output by Nine Different Pulse Contour Algorithms in Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Comparison with Transpulmonary Thermodilution.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets