Dataset Information

Agreement between continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution for cardiac output measurement in perioperative and intensive care medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pulmonary artery thermodilution is the clinical reference method for cardiac output monitoring. Because both continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution are used in clinical practice it is important to know whether cardiac output measurements by the two methods are clinically interchangeable.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies comparing cardiac output measurements assessed using continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in adult surgical and critically ill patients. 54 studies with 1522 patients were included in the analysis.

Results

The heterogeneity across the studies was high. The overall random effects model-derived pooled estimate of the mean of the differences was 0.08 (95%-confidence interval 0.01 to 0.16) L/min with pooled 95%-limits of agreement of - 1.68 to 1.85 L/min and a pooled percentage error of 29.7 (95%-confidence interval 20.5 to 38.9)%.

Conclusion

The heterogeneity across clinical studies comparing continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in adult surgical and critically ill patients is high. The overall trueness/accuracy of continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution in comparison with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution is good (indicated by a pooled mean of the differences < 0.1 L/min). Pooled 95%-limits of agreement of - 1.68 to 1.85 L/min and a pooled percentage error of 29.7% suggest that continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution barely passes interchangeability criteria with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020159730.

SUBMITTER: Kouz K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8006374 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:Echocardiography, as a noninvasive hemodynamic evaluation technique, is frequently used in critically ill patients. Different opinions exist regarding whether it can be interchanged with traditional invasive means, such as the pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution (TD) technique. This systematic review aimed to analyze the consistency and interchangeability of cardiac output measurements by ultrasound (US) and TD. Five electronic databases were searched for studies including clinical trials conducted up to June 2019 in which patients' cardiac output was measured by ultrasound techniques (echocardiography) and TD. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers who used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), which was tailored according to our systematic review in Review Manager 5.3. A total of 68 studies with 1996 patients were identified as eligible. Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were used to compare the cardiac output (CO) measured using the different types of echocardiography and different sites of Doppler use with TD. No significant differences were found between US and TD (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.14; 95% confidence interval, -0.30 to 0.02; P = 0.08). No significant differences were observed in the subgroup analyses using different types of echocardiography and different sites except for ascending aorta (AA) (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.37; 95% confidence interval, -0.74 to -0.01; P = 0.05) of Doppler use. The median of bias and limits of agreement were -0.12 and ±0.94 L/min, respectively; the median of correlation coefficient was 0.827 (range, 0.140-0.998). Although the difference in CO between echocardiography by different types or sites and TD was not entirely consistent, the overall effect of meta-analysis showed that no significant differences were observed between US and TD. The techniques may be interchangeable under certain conditions.

Project description:BackgroundIntermittent fasting is a time-restricted feeding strategy with proven health benefits, which is based on multiple metabolic and endocrine changes, in several patient populations and healthy participants. In the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), artificial feeding is usually administered 24 hours a day, although solid evidence supporting this practice is lacking. This discards the potential benefits of fasting in this population. We hypothesize that intermittent nutrition with a focus on an overnight feeding interruption (intermittent fasting), as compared with 24-hour continuous nutrition, is a feasible and safe strategy, with potential benefits, for critically ill children.ObjectiveThe aim of the Continuous versus Intermittent Nutrition in Pediatric Intensive Care randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate a strategy of intermittent nutrition with a focus on an overnight feeding interruption period versus 24-hour nutrition during the first 14 days in the PICU.MethodsThe Continuous versus Intermittent Nutrition in Pediatric Intensive Care study is an investigator-initiated RCT in a tertiary referral PICU. Critically ill children (term newborn to 18 years), expected to stay in the PICU for ≥48 hours, and dependent on artificial nutrition, are eligible for inclusion. This study will randomize critically ill children (n=140) to a continuous versus intermittent nutrition strategy. In both groups, similar daily caloric targets will be prescribed. In the continuous group (control), nutrition will be administered 24 hours a day, with a maximum interruption period of 2 hours. In the intermittent group (intervention), nutrition will be interrupted during an age-dependent overnight fasting period. The study intervention will last until admission day 14, initiation of oral intake, or discharge from the PICU, whichever comes first. The primary outcome is the difference in ketosis between the groups under the condition of noninferiority regarding caloric intake. Secondary outcomes are feeding intolerance; the proportion of severe and resistant hypoglycemic events and severe gastrointestinal complications; and additional observed effects on nutritional intake, circadian rhythm, and clinically relevant outcome measures of the intermittent feeding strategy compared with continuous nutrition.ResultsThe study was approved by the Dutch national ethical review board in February 2020. The first patient was enrolled on May 19, 2020. By May 2022, a total of 132 patients had been included in the study. Recruitment of the last patient is expected in Q3 2022.ConclusionsAlthough intermittent fasting has been proven to have many health benefits in both animal and human studies, the feasibility and safety of this strategy in a PICU setting must be investigated. This RCT will help physicians gain more insight into the feasibility, safety, and potential clinical effects of intermittent feeding with overnight fasting in critically ill children.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NL7877; https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NL7877.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/36229.

Project description:IntroductionRight heart catheterization (RHC) is a diagnostic procedure, the main purpose of which is to diagnose pulmonary hypertension and investigate its etiology and treatability. In addition to measuring blood pressure in heart chambers, it includes estimating cardiac output (CO) and calculation of pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) derived from the CO. There are two common methods to evaluate the CO-the indirect Fick method and the thermodilution method. Depending on the clinical conditions, either of the two may be considered better. Several studies have showed that, in most cases, there is no difference between measurements rendered by the two methods. Other studies have raised suspicion of a discrepancy between the two methods in a substantial number of patients. A clear opinion on this matter is missing.AimTo evaluate the agreement between the values of the CO and PVR found by the thermodilution and indirect Fick methods.MethodsWe retrospectively included patients that underwent RHC in Kaplan Medical Center during the last two years with a measurement of the CO using both the thermodilution and the indirect Fick methods. The measurements obtained upon RHC and the clinical data of the patients were collected. The values of the CO and PVR measured or calculated using the two methods were compared for each patient.ResultsWe included 55 patients that met the inclusion criteria in this study. The mean CO measured by the thermodilution method was 4.94 ± 1.17 L/min and the mean CO measured by the indirect Fick method was 5.82 ± 1.97 L/min. The mean PVR calculated using the thermodilution method was 3.33 ± 3.04 Woods' units (WU) and the mean PVR calculated using the indirect Fick method was 2.71 ± 2.76 WU. Among the patients with normal mPAP, there was a strong and statistically significant correlation between the PVR values calculated by the two methods (Peasron's R2 = 0.78, p-value = 0.004), while among the patients with elevated mPAP, the correlation between the PVR values calculated by the two methods was not statistically significant.ConclusionThe findings of this small study demonstrate that, in a proportion of patients, the indirect Fick method and thermodilution method classify the PVR value differently. In our experience, it seems that, in these patients, the indirect Fick method misclassified patients with a pathological finding as normal. We, therefore, recommend that upon performing RHC, at least in patients with mPAP > 25 mmHg, both the thermodilution and indirect Fick methods be performed and, whenever they disagree, the values obtained from the thermodilution method should be preferred.