Comparison of cardiac output monitoring with the Pulse Wave Transit Time technique versus arterial waveform analysis
Authors:
M. Chobola; J. Hruda; M. Lukeš; J. Klimeš; V. Šrámek; P. Suk
Authors‘ workplace:
Anesteziologicko-resuscitační klinika, Fakultní nemocnice u sv. Anny v Brně, Centrum mezinárodního klinického výzkumu ICRC, Masarykova univerzita
Published in:
Anest. intenziv. Med., 28, 2017, č. 6, s. 339-345
Category:
Intensive Care Medicine - Original Paper
Overview
Objective:
The aim of the study was to compare the esCCO Vismo (Nihon Kohden, Japan) monitor to the routinely used LiDCOrapid (LiDCO Group, Great Britain) monitor in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.
Design:
Observational study.
Setting:
General surgery operating theatres in a University Hospital.
Materials and methods:
ASA III patients scheduled for elective major abdominal surgery with expected operation duration over 90 minutes were included in the study. Cardiac output measurements by esCCO and LiDCOrapid were recorded before induction of anaesthesia, every 15 min throughout the surgery and after extubation. The agreement and trending ability of the two methods were tested with the Bland-Altman analysis and polar plot, respectively.
Results:
A total of 141 paired readings from 10 patients were collected. The Bland-Altman analysis corrected for repeated measures showed a bias of +1.2 l/min, limits of agreement ±2.6 l/min and percentage error of 57 %. The direction of change between consecutive esCCO measurements and the corresponding LiDCOrapid measurements showed a concordance rate of 80 %. In the polar plot, the angular bias was +11° with radial limits of agreement from -40° to +62°.
Conclusion:
Hemodynamic monitoring with esCCO yields cardiac output values different from those measured by LiDCOrapid. esCCO cannot be currently recommended as a reliable surrogate for LiDCOrapid.
keywords:
pulse wave transit time – cardiac output – esCCO – LiDCO – haemodynamics – perioperative care
Sources
1. Shoemaker WC, Appel PL, Kram HB. Role of oxygen debt in the development of organ failure sepsis, and death in high-risk surgical patients. Chest. 1992;102:208–215.
2. Vincent JL. The pulmonary artery catheter. Clin Monit Comput. 2012;26:341–345.
3. Ramsingh D, Alexander B, Cannesson M. Clinicalreview: Does it matter which hemodynamic monitoring system is used? Crit Care. 2013;17:208.
4. Cecconi M, Corredor C, Arulkumaran N, Abuella G, Ball J, Grounds RM, Hamilton M, Rhodes A. Clinicalreview: Goal-directed therapy-what is the evidence in surgical patients? The effect on different risk groups. Crit Care. 2013;17:209.
5. Sugo Y, Ukawa T, Takeda S, Ishihara H, Kazama T, Takeda J. A novel continuous cardiac output monitor based on pulse wave transit time. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010; 2010:2853–2856.
6. Biais M, Berthezène R, Petit L, Cottenceau V, Sztark F. Ability of esCCO to track changes in cardiac output. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115:403–410.
7. Rhodes A, Sunderland R. Arterial Pulse Power Analysis: The LiDCOTMplus System In: Pinsky MR, PayenD, editors. Functional Hemodynamic Monitoring (Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2005, p. 183–192.
8. Phan TD, Kluger R, Wan C, Wong D, Padayachee A. A comparison of three minimally invasive cardiac output devices with thermodilution in elective cardiac surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2011;39:1014–1021.
9. Klimes J, Hruda J, Lukes M, Suk P, Sramek V. Adherence to the nurse-driven hemodynamic protocol during postoperative care. Critical Care. 2014;18(Suppl 1):P138.
10. Bataille B, Bertuit M, Mora M, Mazerolles M, Cocquet P, Masson B, Moussot PE, Ginot J, Silva S, Larche J. Comparison of esCCO and transthoracic echocardiography for non-invasive measurement of cardiac output intensive care. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:879–886.
11. Critchley LA, Yang XX, Lee A. Assessment of trending ability of cardiac output monitors by polar plot methodology. J CardiothoracVascAnesth. 2011;25:536–546.
12. Sugo Y, Sakai T, Terao M, Ukawa T, Ochiai R. The comparison of a novel continuous cardiac output monitor based on pulse wave transit time and echo Doppler during exercise. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:236–239.
13. Yamada T, Tsutsui M, Sugo Y, Sato T, Akazawa T, Sato N, Yamashita K, Ishihara H, Takeda J. Multicenter study verifying a method of noninvasive continuous cardiac output measurement using pulse wave transit time: a comparison with intermittent bolus thermodilution cardiac output. Anesth Analg. 2012;115:82–87.
14. Ishihara H, Sugo Y, Tsutsui M, Yamada T, Sato T, Akazawa T, Sato N, Yamashita K, Takeda J. The abilityof a new continuous cardiac output monitor to measure trends in cardiac output following implementation of a patient information calibration and an automated exclusion algorithm. J Clin Monit Comput. 2012;26:465–471.
15. Ball TR, Tricinella AP, Kimbrough BA, Luna S, Gloyna DF, Villamaria FJ, Culp WC Jr. Accuracy of noninvasive estimated continuous cardiac output (esCCO) compared to thermodilution cardiac output: a pilot study in cardiac patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2013;27:1128–1132.
16. Raissuni Z, Zores F, Henriet O, Dallest S, Roul G. Can We Obtain a Noninvasive and Continuous Estimation of Cardiac Output? Comparison Between Three Noninvasive Methods. Int Heart J. 2013;54:395–400.
17. Fischer MO, Balaire X, LeMauff de Kergal C, Boisselier C, Gérard JL, Hanouz JL, Fellahi JL. The diagnostic accuracy of estimated continuous cardiac output compared with transthoracic echocardiography. Can J Anaesth. 2014;61:19–26.
18. Terada T, Maemura Y, Yoshida A, Muto R, Ochiai R. Evaluation of the estimated continuous cardiac output monitoring system in adults and children undergoing kidney transplant surgery: a pilot study. J Clin Monit Comput. 2014;28:95–99.
19. Kocyigit I, Sipahioglu MH, Orscelik O, Unal A, Celik A, Abbas SR, Zhu F, Tokgoz B, Dogan A, Oymak O, Kotanko P, Levin NW. The association between arterial stiffness and fluid status in peritoneal dialysis patients. Perit Dial Int. 2014;34:781–790.
20. Davies SJ, Minhas S, Wilson RJ, Yates D, Howell SJ. Comparison of stroke volume and fluid responsiveness measurements in commonly used technologies for goal-directed therapy. J Clin Anesth. 2013;25:466–474.
21. Nordström J, Hällsjö-Sander C, Shore R, Björne H. Stroke volume optimization in elective bowel surgery: a comparison between pulse power wave analysis (LiDCOrapid) and oesophageal Doppler (CardioQ). Br J Anaesth. 2013;110:374–380.
Labels
Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Inten Intensive Care MedicineArticle was published in
Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine
2017 Issue 6
Most read in this issue
- The heart as a source of systemic embolization
- Comparison of cardiac output monitoring with the Pulse Wave Transit Time technique versus arterial waveform analysis
- Ultrasound-assisted continual infraclavicular block of the brachial plexus
- TotalTrack VLM – a new tool for difficult airway management