Comparison of uncalibrated arterial waveform analysis in cardiac surgery patients with thermodilution cardiac output measurements
Open Access
- 21 November 2006
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Springer Nature in Critical Care
- Vol. 10 (6) , R164
- https://doi.org/10.1186/cc5103
Abstract
Introduction: Cardiac output (CO) monitoring is indicated only in selected patients. In cardiac surgical patients, perioperative haemodynamic management is often guided by CO measurement by pulmonary artery catheterisation (COPAC). Alternative strategies of CO determination have become increasingly accepted in clinical practice because the benefit of guiding therapy by data derived from the PAC remains to be proven and less invasive alternatives are available. Recently, a device offering uncalibrated CO measurement by arterial waveform analysis (COWave) was introduced. As far as this approach is concerned, however, the validity of the CO measurements obtained is utterly unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the bias and the limits of agreement (LOAs) (two standard deviations) of COWave at four specified time points prior, during, and after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with a simultaneous measurement of the gold standard COPAC and aortic transpulmonary thermodilution CO (COTranspulm). Methods: Data from 30 patients were analysed during this prospective study. COPAC, COTranspulm, and COWave were determined in all patients at four different time points prior, during, and after CABG surgery. The COPAC and the COTranspulm were measured by triple injection of 10 ml of iced isotone sodium chloride solution into the central venous line of the PAC. Measurements of COWave were simultaneously taken at these time points. Results: The overall correlation showed a Spearman correlation coefficient between COPAC and COWave of 0.53 (p < 0.01) and 0.84 (p < 0.01) for COPAC and COTranspulm. Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean bias and LOAs of 0.6 litres per minute and -2.2 to +3.4 litres per minute for COPAC versus COWave and -0.1 litres per minute and -1.8 to +1.6 litres per minute for COPAC versus COTranspulm. Conclusion: Arterial waveform analysis with an uncalibrated algorithm COWave underestimated COPAC to a clinically relevant extent. The wide range of LOAs requires further evaluation. Better results might be achieved with an improved new algorithm. In contrast to this, we observed a better correlation of thermodilution COTranspulm and thermodilution COPAC measurements prior, during, and after CABG surgery.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trialThe Lancet, 2005
- Early Use of the Pulmonary Artery Catheter and Outcomes in Patients With Shock and Acute Respiratory Distress SyndromeA Randomized Controlled TrialJAMA, 2003
- Pulse contour analysis versus thermodilution in cardiac surgery patientsActa Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2002
- Reliability of a new algorithm for continuous cardiac output determination by pulse-contour analysis during hemodynamic instabilityCritical Care Medicine, 2002
- A Prospective, Randomized Study of Goal-Oriented Hemodynamic Therapy in Cardiac Surgical PatientsAnesthesia & Analgesia, 2000
- Comparison of pulmonary artery and arterial thermodilution cardiac output in critically ill patientsIntensive Care Medicine, 1999
- Comparison of cardiac output assessed by pulse-contour analysis and thermodilution in patients undergoing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass graftingJournal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, 1999
- The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT InvestigatorsJAMA, 1996
- Computation of aortic flow from pressure in humans using a nonlinear, three-element modelJournal of Applied Physiology, 1993
- Continuous cardiac output monitoring by pulse contour during cardiac surgeryEuropean Heart Journal, 1990