Comparison Between Flotrac-Vigileo and Bioreactance, a Totally Noninvasive Method for Cardiac Output Monitoring

Overview

Journal Crit Care

Specialty Critical Care

Date 2009 May 21

PMID 19454009

Citations 45

Authors

Sophie Marque

Alain Cariou

Jean-Daniel Chiche

Pierre Squara

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: This study was designed to compare the clinical acceptability of two cardiac output (CO) monitoring systems: a pulse wave contour-based system (FloTrac-Vigileo) and a bioreactance-based system (NICOM), using continuous thermodilution (PAC-CCO) as a reference method.

Methods: Consecutive patients, requiring PAC-CCO monitoring following cardiac surgery, were also monitored by the two other devices. CO values obtained simultaneously by the three systems were recorded continuously on a minute-by-minute basis.

Results: Continuous recording was performed on 29 patients, providing 12,099 simultaneous measurements for each device (417 +/- 107 per patient). In stable conditions, correlations of NICOM and Vigileo with PAC-CCO were 0.77 and 0.69, respectively. The bias was -0.01 +/- 0.84 for NICOM and -0.01 +/- 0.81 for Vigileo (NS). NICOM relative error was less than 30% in 94% of the patients and less than 20% in 79% vs. 91% and 79% for the Vigileo, respectively (NS). The variability of measurements around the trend line (precision) was not different between the three methods: 8 +/- 3%, 8 +/- 4% and 8 +/- 3% for PAC-CCO, NICOM and Vigileo, respectively. CO changes were 7.2 minutes faster with Vigileo and 6.9 minutes faster with NICOM (P < 0.05 both systems vs. PAC-CCO, NS). Amplitude of changes was not significantly different than thermodilution. Finally, the sensitivity and specificity for predicting significant CO changes were 0.91 and 0.95 respectively for the NICOM and 0.86 and 0.92 respectively for the Vigileo.

Conclusion: This study showed that the NICOM and Vigileo devices have similar monitoring capabilities in post-operative cardiac surgery patients.

Citing Articles

Agreement between cardiac output estimation with a wireless, wearable pulse decomposition analysis device and continuous thermodilution in post cardiac surgery intensive care unit patients.

Khanna A, Garcia J, Saha A, Harris L, Baruch M, Martin R J Clin Monit Comput. 2023; 38(1):139-146.

PMID: 37458916 DOI: 10.1007/s10877-023-01059-5.

Non-invasive continuous cardiac output monitoring in infants with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy.

Garvey A, ONeill R, Livingstone V, Pavel A, Finn D, Boylan G J Perinatol. 2022; 42(12):1622-1629.

PMID: 36056257 PMC: 9712087. DOI: 10.1038/s41372-022-01495-2.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasonographic Respiratory Variation in the Inferior Vena Cava, Subclavian Vein, Internal Jugular Vein, and Femoral Vein Diameter to Predict Fluid Responsiveness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Kim D, Chung S, Kang W, Kim J Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(1).

PMID: 35054215 PMC: 8774961. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12010049.

Bioreactance reliably detects preload responsiveness by the end-expiratory occlusion test when averaging and refresh times are shortened.

Gavelli F, Beurton A, Teboul J, De Vita N, Azzolina D, Shi R Ann Intensive Care. 2021; 11(1):133.

PMID: 34453633 PMC: 8401368. DOI: 10.1186/s13613-021-00920-7.

Agreement of Bioreactance Cardiac Output Monitoring With Thermodilution in Healthy Standing Horses.

Hopster K, Hurcombe S Front Vet Sci. 2021; 8:701339.

PMID: 34414227 PMC: 8369349. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.701339.

References

Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

Critchley L, Critchley J . A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput. 2003; 15(2):85-91. DOI: 10.1023/a:1009982611386. View

Squara P . Matching total body oxygen consumption and delivery: a crucial objective?. Intensive Care Med. 2004; 30(12):2170-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-004-2449-4. View

Haller M, Zollner C, Briegel J, Forst H . Evaluation of a new continuous thermodilution cardiac output monitor in critically ill patients: a prospective criterion standard study. Crit Care Med. 1995; 23(5):860-6. DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199505000-00014. View

Keren H, Burkhoff D, Squara P . Evaluation of a noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring system based on thoracic bioreactance. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2007; 293(1):H583-9. DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00195.2007. View

Hillis L, Firth B, Winniford M . Analysis of factors affecting the variability of Fick versus indicator dilution measurements of cardiac output. Am J Cardiol. 1985; 56(12):764-8. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9149(85)91132-4. View

Boldt J, Menges T, Wollbruck M, Hammermann H, Hempelmann G . Is continuous cardiac output measurement using thermodilution reliable in the critically ill patient?. Crit Care Med. 1994; 22(12):1913-8. View

Squara P, Denjean D, Estagnasie P, Brusset A, Dib J, Dubois C . Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation. Intensive Care Med. 2007; 33(7):1191-1194. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-007-0640-0. View

Spohr F, Hettrich P, Bauer H, Haas U, Martin E, Bottiger B . Comparison of two methods for enhanced continuous circulatory monitoring in patients with septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2007; 33(10):1805-10. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-007-0703-2. View

10.

Cecconi M, Dawson D, Grounds R, Rhodes A . Lithium dilution cardiac output measurement in the critically ill patient: determination of precision of the technique. Intensive Care Med. 2008; 35(3):498-504. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-008-1292-4. View

11.

Mihm F, Gettinger A, Hanson 3rd C, Gilbert H, Stover E, Vender J . A multicenter evaluation of a new continuous cardiac output pulmonary artery catheter system. Crit Care Med. 1998; 26(8):1346-50. DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199808000-00018. View

12.

Le Tulzo Y, Belghith M, Seguin P, DallAva J, Monchi M, Thomas R . Reproducibility of thermodilution cardiac output determination in critically ill patients: comparison between bolus and continuous method. J Clin Monit. 1996; 12(5):379-85. DOI: 10.1007/BF02077635. View

13.

Nelson L . The new pulmonary artery catheters: continuous venous oximetry, right ventricular ejection fraction, and continuous cardiac output. New Horiz. 1997; 5(3):251-8. View

14.

Russell J, Phang P . The oxygen delivery/consumption controversy. Approaches to management of the critically ill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994; 149(2 Pt 1):533-7. DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm.149.2.8306058. View

15.

Rubini A, Del Monte D, Catena V, Attar I, Cesaro M, Soranzo D . Cardiac output measurement by the thermodilution method: an in vitro test of accuracy of three commercially available automatic cardiac output computers. Intensive Care Med. 1995; 21(2):154-8. DOI: 10.1007/BF01726539. View

16.

de Waal E, Kalkman C, Rex S, Buhre W . Validation of a new arterial pulse contour-based cardiac output device. Crit Care Med. 2007; 35(8):1904-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000275429.45312.8C. View

17.

Vermeij C, Feenstra B, Bruining H . Oxygen delivery and oxygen uptake in postoperative and septic patients. Chest. 1990; 98(2):415-20. DOI: 10.1378/chest.98.2.415. View

18.

de Wilde R, Schreuder J, van den Berg P, Jansen J . An evaluation of cardiac output by five arterial pulse contour techniques during cardiac surgery. Anaesthesia. 2007; 62(8):760-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05135.x. View

19.

Stetz C, Miller R, Kelly G, Raffin T . Reliability of the thermodilution method in the determination of cardiac output in clinical practice. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1982; 126(6):1001-4. DOI: 10.1164/arrd.1982.126.6.1001. View