Dataset Information

Non-invasive Oscillometry-Based Estimation of Cardiac Output - Can We Use It in Clinical Practice?

ABSTRACT: While invasive thermodilution techniques remain the reference methods for cardiac output (CO) measurement, there is a currently unmet need for non-invasive techniques to simplify CO determination, reduce complications related to invasive procedures required for indicator dilution CO measurement, and expand the application field toward emergency room, non-intensive care, or outpatient settings. We evaluated the performance of a non-invasive oscillometry-based CO estimation method compared to transpulmonary thermodilution. To assess agreement between the devices, we used Bland-Altman analysis. Four-quadrant plot analysis was used to visualize the ability of Mobil-O-Graph (MG) to track CO changes after a fluid challenge. Trending analysis of CO trajectories was used to compare MG and PiCCO^® calibrated pulse wave analysis over time (6 h). We included 40 patients from the medical intensive care unit at the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin between November 2019 and June 2020. The median age was 73 years. Forty percent of the study population was male; 98% was ventilator-dependent and 75% vasopressor-dependent at study entry. The mean of the observed differences for the cardiac output index (COI) was 0.7 l^∗min^-1*m^-2 and the lower, and upper 95% limits of agreement (LOA) were -1.9 and 3.3 l^∗min^-1*m^-2, respectively. The 95% confidence interval for the LOA was ± 0.26 l^∗min^-1*m^-2, the percentage error 83.6%. We observed concordant changes in CO with MG and PiCCO^® in 50% of the measurements after a fluid challenge and over the course of 6 h. Cardiac output calculation with a novel oscillometry-based pulse wave analysis method is feasible and replicable in critically ill patients. However, we did not find clinically applicable agreement between MG and thermodilution or calibrated pulse wave analysis, respectively, assessed with established evaluation routine using the Bland-Altman approach and with trending analysis methods. In summary, we do not recommend the use of this method in critically ill patients at this time. As the basic approach is promising and the CO determination with MG very simple to perform, further studies should be undertaken both in hemodynamically stable patients, and in the critical care setting to allow additional adjustments of the underlying algorithm for CO estimation with MG.

SUBMITTER: Reshetnik A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8369501 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is little published data investigating non-invasive cardiac output monitoring in the emergency department (ED). We assessed six non-invasive fluid responsiveness monitoring methods which measure cardiac output directly or indirectly for their feasibility and repeatability of measurements in the ED: (1) left ventricular outflow tract echocardiography derived velocity time integral, (2) common carotid artery blood flow, (3) suprasternal aortic Doppler, (4) bioreactance, (5) plethysmography with digital vascular unloading method, and (6) inferior vena cava collapsibility index.MethodsThis is a prospective observational study of non-invasive methods of assessing fluid responsiveness in the ED. Participants were non-ventilated ED adult patients requiring intravenous fluid resuscitation. Feasibility of each method was determined by the proportion of clinically interpretable measurements from the number of measurement attempts. Repeatability was determined by comparing the mean difference of two paired measurements in a fluid steady state (after participants received an intravenous fluid bolus).Results76 patients were recruited in the study. A total of 207 fluid responsiveness measurement sets were analysed. Feasibility rates were 97.6% for bioreactance, 91.3% for vascular unloading method with plethysmography, 87.4% for common carotid artery blood flow, 84.1% for inferior vena cava collapsibility index, 78.7% for LVOT VTI, and 76.8% for suprasternal aortic Doppler. The feasibility rates difference between bioreactance and all other methods was statistically significant.ConclusionOur study shows that non-invasive fluid responsiveness monitoring in the emergency department may be feasible with selected methods. Higher repeatability of measurements were observed in non-ultrasound methods. These findings have implications for further studies specifically assessing the accuracy of such non-invasive cardiac output methods and their effect on patient outcome in the ED in fluid depleted states such as sepsis.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic in The Netherlands, critically ill ventilated COVID-19 patients were transferred not only between hospitals by ambulance but also by the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS). To date, little is known about the physiological impact of helicopter transport on critically ill patients and COVID-19 patients in particular. This study was conducted to explore the impact of inter-hospital helicopter transfer on vital signs of mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19, with special focus on take-off, midflight, and landing.MethodsAll ventilated critically ill COVID-19 patients who were transported between April 2020 and June 2021 by the Dutch 'Lifeliner 5' HEMS team and who were fully monitored, including noninvasive cardiac output, were included in this study. Three 10-min timeframes (take-off, midflight and landing) were defined for analysis. Continuous data on the vital parameters heart rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, arterial blood pressure, end-tidal CO2 and noninvasive cardiac output using electrical cardiometry were collected and stored at 1-min intervals. Data were analyzed for differences over time within the timeframes using one-way analysis of variance. Significant differences were checked for clinical relevance.ResultsNinety-eight patients were included in the analysis. During take-off, an increase was noticed in cardiac output (from 6.7 to 8.2 L min-1; P < 0.0001), which was determined by a decrease in systemic vascular resistance (from 1071 to 739 dyne·s·cm-5, P < 0.0001) accompanied by an increase in stroke volume (from 88.8 to 113.7 mL, P < 0.0001). Other parameters were unchanged during take-off and mid-flight. During landing, cardiac output and stroke volume slightly decreased (from 8.0 to 6.8 L min-1, P < 0.0001 and from 110.1 to 84.4 mL, P < 0.0001, respectively), and total systemic vascular resistance increased (P < 0.0001). Though statistically significant, the found changes were small and not clinically relevant to the medical status of the patients as judged by the attending physicians.ConclusionsInterhospital helicopter transfer of ventilated intensive care patients with COVID-19 can be performed safely and does not result in clinically relevant changes in vital signs.

Dataset Information

Non-invasive Oscillometry-Based Estimation of Cardiac Output - Can We Use It in Clinical Practice?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets