Dataset Information

Comparison between capnodynamic and thermodilution method for cardiac output monitoring during major abdominal surgery: An observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiac 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.

Objectives

To compare the performance of the capnodynamic method of CO monitoring with transpulmonary thermodilution (COTPTD) in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.

Design

Prospective, 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.

Setting

Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.

Patients

In total, 35 patients (>18 years) scheduled for major abdominal surgery with advanced hemodynamic monitoring were included in the study.

Main outcome measures and analysis

Agreement and trending ability between COEPBF and COTPTD at different clinical moments were analysed with Bland--Altman and four quadrant plots.

Results

In 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.

Conclusion

COEPBF 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 registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03444545.

SUBMITTER: Sigmundsson TS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8631141 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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.

Project description:IntroductionTranspulmonary thermodilution is used to measure cardiac output (CO), global end-diastolic volume (GEDV) and extravascular lung water (EVLW). A system has been introduced (VolumeView/EV1000™ system, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine CA, USA) that employs a novel algorithm for the mathematical analysis of the thermodilution curve. Our aim was to evaluate the agreement of this method with the established PiCCO™ method (Pulsion Medical Systems SE, Munich, Germany, clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01405040) METHODS: Seventy-two critically ill patients with clinical indication for advanced hemodynamic monitoring were included in this prospective, multicenter, observational study. During a 72-hour observation period, 443 sets of thermodilution measurements were performed with the new system. These measurements were electronically recorded, converted into an analog resistance signal and then re-analyzed by a PiCCO2™ device (Pulsion Medical Systems SE).ResultsFor CO, GEDV, and EVLW, the systems showed a high correlation (r(2) = 0.981, 0.926 and 0.971, respectively), minimal bias (0.2 L/minute, 29.4 ml and 36.8 ml), and a low percentage error (9.7%, 11.5% and 12.2%). Changes in CO, GEDV and EVLW were tracked with a high concordance between the two systems, with a traditional concordance for CO, GEDV, and EVLW of 98.5%, 95.1%, and 97.7% and a polar plot concordance of 100%, 99.8% and 99.8% for CO, GEDV, and EVLW, respectively. Radial limits of agreement for CO, GEDV and EVLW were 0.31 ml/minute, 81 ml and 40 ml, respectively. The precision of GEDV measurements was significantly better using the VolumeView™ algorithm compared to the PiCCO™ algorithm (0.033 (0.03) versus 0.040 (0.03; median (interquartile range), P = 0.000049).ConclusionsFor CO, GEDV, and EVLW, the agreement of both the individual measurements as well as measurements of change showed the interchangeability of the two methods. For the VolumeView method, the higher precision may indicate a more robust GEDV algorithm.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT01405040.