Comparison of Accuracy of Two Uncalibrated Pulse Contour Cardiac Output Monitors in Off-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Patients Using Pulmonary Artery Catheter-thermodilution As a Reference

Overview

Journal BMC Anesthesiol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Anesthesiology

Date 2021 Jul 11

PMID 34246222

Citations 11

Authors

Ramakrishna Mukkamala

Benjamin A Kohl

Aman Mahajan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Cardiac output (CO) is a key measure of adequacy of organ and tissue perfusion, especially in critically ill or complex surgical patients. CO monitoring technology continues to evolve. Recently developed CO monitors rely on unique algorithms based on pulse contour analysis of an arterial blood pressure (ABP) waveform. The objective of this investigation was to compare the accuracy of two monitors using different methods of pulse contour analysis - the Retia Argos device and the Edwards Vigileo-FloTrac device - with pulmonary artery catheter (PAC)-thermodilution as a reference.

Methods: Fifty-eight patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery formed the study cohort. A total of 572 triplets of CO measurements from each device - Argos, Vigileo-FloTrac (third generation), and thermodilution - were available before and after interventions (e.g., vasopressors, fluids, and inotropes). Bland-Altman analysis accounting for repeated measurements per subject and concordance analysis were applied to assess the accuracy of the CO values and intervention-induced CO changes of each pulse contour device against thermodilution. Cluster bootstrapping was employed to statistically compare the root-mean-squared-errors (RMSE = √(μ + σ), where μ and σ are the Bland-Altman bias and precision errors) and concordance rates of the two devices.

Results: The RMSE (mean (95% confidence intervals)) for CO values was 1.16 (1.00-1.32) L/min for the Argos device and 1.54 (1.33-1.77) L/min for the Vigileo-FloTrac device; the concordance rate for intervention-induced CO changes was 87 (82-92)% for the Argos device and 72 (65-78)% for the Vigileo-FloTrac device; and the RMSE for the CO changes was 17 (15-19)% for the Argos device and 21 (19-23)% for the Vigileo-FloTrac device (p < 0.0167 for all comparisons).

Conclusions: In comparison with CO measured by the PAC, the Argos device proved to be more accurate than the Vigileo-FloTrac device in CO trending and absolute CO measurement in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.

Citing Articles

Occurrence of Low Cardiac Index During Normotensive Periods in Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study Using Continuous Noninvasive Cardiac Output Monitoring.

Goeddel L, Koffman L, Hernandez M, Whitman G, Parikh C, Lima J Anesth Analg. 2024; 140(1):77-86.

PMID: 39207928 PMC: 11649474. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000007206.

Bitker L, Noirot I, Chauvelot L, Mezidi M, Dhelft F, Gaillet M Crit Care Resusc. 2024; 26(2):108-115.

PMID: 39072233 PMC: 11282375. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccrj.2024.04.003.

Pulmonary artery catheter receipt among cardiac surgery patients from the national inpatient sample (1999-2019): Prevalence, predictors and hospitalization charges.

Beydoun H, Beydoun M, Eid S, Zonderman A Heliyon. 2024; 10(3):e24902.

PMID: 38317919 PMC: 10839978. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24902.

Anesthetic management of a huge retroperitoneal leiomyoma: a case report.

Shi Y, Zhu B, Zhang Y, Huang Y Perioper Med (Lond). 2023; 12(1):64.

PMID: 38017529 PMC: 10683212. DOI: 10.1186/s13741-023-00352-w.

Tissue perfusion pressure enables continuous hemodynamic evaluation and risk prediction in the intensive care unit.

Chandrasekhar A, Padros-Valls R, Pallares-Lopez R, Palanques-Tost E, Houstis N, Sundt T Nat Med. 2023; 29(8):1998-2006.

PMID: 37550417 DOI: 10.1038/s41591-023-02474-6.

References

Bland J, Altman D . Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat. 2007; 17(4):571-82. DOI: 10.1080/10543400701329422. View

Saugel B, Heeschen J, Hapfelmeier A, Romagnoli S, Greiwe G . Cardiac output estimation using multi-beat analysis of the radial arterial blood pressure waveform: a method comparison study in patients having off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery using intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution as the.... J Clin Monit Comput. 2019; 34(4):649-654. PMC: 7367911. DOI: 10.1007/s10877-019-00375-z. View

Critchley L, Lee A, Ho A . A critical review of the ability of continuous cardiac output monitors to measure trends in cardiac output. Anesth Analg. 2010; 111(5):1180-92. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181f08a5b. View

Suehiro K, Tanaka K, Mikawa M, Uchihara Y, Matsuyama T, Matsuura T . Improved Performance of the Fourth-Generation FloTrac/Vigileo System for Tracking Cardiac Output Changes. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2014; 29(3):656-62. DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2014.07.022. View

Hao G, Liu Y, Ma G, Hou J, Zhu D, Liu L . Reliability of three-dimensional color flow Doppler and two-dimensional pulse wave Doppler transthoracic echocardiography for estimating cardiac output after cardiac surgery. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2019; 17(1):5. PMC: 6448273. DOI: 10.1186/s12947-019-0155-1. View

Ganter M, Geisen M, Hartnack S, Dzemali O, Hofer C . Prediction of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgical patients: the performance of seven different functional hemodynamic parameters. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018; 18(1):55. PMC: 5964892. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-018-0520-x. View

Milam A, Ghoddoussi F, Lucaj J, Narreddy S, Kumar N, Reddy V . Comparing the Mutual Interchangeability of ECOM, FloTrac/Vigileo, 3D-TEE, and ITD-PAC Cardiac Output Measuring Systems in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020; 35(2):514-529. DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2020.03.048. View

Geisen M, Ganter M, Hartnack S, Dzemali O, Hofer C, Zollinger A . Accuracy, Precision, and Trending of 4 Pulse Wave Analysis Techniques in the Postoperative Period. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2017; 32(2):715-722. DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2017.09.006. View

Zhang G, Mukkamala R . Continuous and minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring by long time interval analysis of a radial arterial pressure waveform: assessment using a large, public intensive care unit patient database. Br J Anaesth. 2012; 109(3):339-44. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aes099. View

10.

Mukkamala R, Reisner A, Hojman H, Mark R, Cohen R . Continuous cardiac output monitoring by peripheral blood pressure waveform analysis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2006; 53(3):459-67. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2005.869780. View

11.

Jalil B, Thompson P, Cavallazzi R, Marik P, Mann J, El-Kersh K . Comparing Changes in Carotid Flow Time and Stroke Volume Induced by Passive Leg Raising. Am J Med Sci. 2018; 355(2):168-173. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjms.2017.09.006. View

12.

Grensemann J . Cardiac Output Monitoring by Pulse Contour Analysis, the Technical Basics of Less-Invasive Techniques. Front Med (Lausanne). 2018; 5:64. PMC: 5845549. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00064. View

13.

Michard F, Giglio M, Brienza N . Perioperative goal-directed therapy with uncalibrated pulse contour methods: impact on fluid management and postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth. 2017; 119(1):22-30. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aex138. View

14.

Godje O, Hoke K, Goetz A, Felbinger T, Reuter D, Reichart B . Reliability of a new algorithm for continuous cardiac output determination by pulse-contour analysis during hemodynamic instability. Crit Care Med. 2002; 30(1):52-8. DOI: 10.1097/00003246-200201000-00008. View

15.

Kusaka Y, Ohchi F, Minami T . Evaluation of the Fourth-Generation FloTrac/Vigileo System in Comparison With the Intermittent Bolus Thermodilution Method in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018; 33(4):953-960. DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2018.06.017. View

16.

Mukkamala R, Xu D . Continuous and less invasive central hemodynamic monitoring by blood pressure waveform analysis. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2010; 299(3):H584-99. PMC: 2944477. DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00303.2010. View

17.

Pratt B, Roteliuk L, Hatib F, Frazier J, Wallen R . Calculating arterial pressure-based cardiac output using a novel measurement and analysis method. Biomed Instrum Technol. 2007; 41(5):403-11. DOI: 10.2345/0899-8205(2007)41[403:CAPCOU]2.0.CO;2. View

18.

Joosten A, Desebbe O, Suehiro K, Murphy L, Essiet M, Alexander B . Accuracy and precision of non-invasive cardiac output monitoring devices in perioperative medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis†. Br J Anaesth. 2017; 118(3):298-310. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew461. View

19.

Peyton P, Chong S . Minimally invasive measurement of cardiac output during surgery and critical care: a meta-analysis of accuracy and precision. Anesthesiology. 2010; 113(5):1220-35. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181ee3130. View

20.

Lu Z, Mukkamala R . Continuous cardiac output monitoring in humans by invasive and noninvasive peripheral blood pressure waveform analysis. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2006; 101(2):598-608. DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01488.2005. View