CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Seguin, P.
Right arrow Articles by Malledant, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Seguin, P.
Right arrow Articles by Malledant, Y.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 45, 578-583, Copyright © 1998 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

Evaluation of a new semi-continuous cardiac output system in the intensive care unit

P Seguin, O Colcanap, A Le Rouzo, M Tanguy, YM Guillou and Y Malledant
Service d'Anesthesiologie-Reanimation Chirurgicale 1, CHR-U de Pontchaillou, Rennes, France. yMalledant.rennes@invivo.edu

PURPOSE: A new semi-continuous thermodilution cardiac output (CCO) system has been developed recently (Opti-Q and Q-vue Abbott critical care system). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and reproducibility of this new device with conventional ice-bolus thermodilution cardiac output (BCO). METHODS: Fifteen critically ill patients who needed pulmonary artery catheterization were prospectively investigated. Eighty seven paired data using BCO and CCO methods were compared. Reproducibility was assessed from 90 BCO and 87 CCO determinations by calculation of the mean standard error (SEM) and according to Bland and Altman methodology. RESULTS: The BCO and CCO ranged from 2.46 to 11.20 L.min-1 and from 1.75 to 10.05 L.min-1 respectively. Bias (mean difference between BCO and CCO) was null (0.002 L.min-1, P = 0.98), precision (SD of the bias) was 0.74 L.min-1 and the limits of agreement (mean difference +/- 1.96 SD) ranged from -1.45 to 1.45 L.min-1. The threshold to consider two cardiac outputs as different (3 x SEM) was equivalent for BCO and CCO (0.54 and 0.465 L.min-1 respectively). According to the Bland and Altman method, reproducibility of CCO was greater than that of BCO; bias of repeated measurements of BCO and CCO were 0.15 L.min-1 (P < 0.05) and 0.047 L.min-1 (NS), respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with BCO, this new device was accurate but cannot be considered as interchangeable regarding the limits of agreement. Reproducibility of CCO was superior to BCO.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
S. Mantha, M. F. Roizen, L. A. Fleisher, R. Thisted, and J. Foss
Comparing Methods of Clinical Measurement: Reporting Standards for Bland and Altman Analysis
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2000; 90(3): 593 - 602.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.