| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
* From the Departments of Anesthesiology, and
Cardiac Surgery, Heart Centre Bad Krozingen, Bad Krozingen, Germany; and the
Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Address correspondence to: Dr. Cornelius Keyl, Heart Centre Bad Krozingen, Suedring 15, 79189 Bad Krozingen, Germany. Fax: +49-7633-402-2659; E-mail: cornelius.keyl{at}herzzentrum.de
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of cardiac output (CO) measurement by arterial pulse waveform analysis (COPW) to thermodilution assessments in patients with aortic stenosis, a high-risk patient group who may benefit from extended hemodynamic monitoring.
Methods: In 30 patients with aortic stenosis, CO was assessed in triplicate by thermodilution via pulmonary artery catheterization (COPAC), and by arterial pulse waveform analysis (COPW), before and after valve replacement. The techniques were compared by assessing the repeatability coefficient of each method and by calculating the percentage error, bias, and the limits of agreement between methods.
Results: The repeatability coefficients of COPAC and COPW were 0.89 L·min–1 and 1.04 L·min–1 respectively after induction of anesthesia, which corresponded to 24% of COPAC and 26% of COPW, and increased to 33% of COPAC and 32% of COPW immediately after extracorporeal circulation. A systematic error between methods was not observed. The limits of agreement were bias ± 1.42 L·min–1 after anesthesia induction, corresponding to a 36% percentage error. The scattering of differences between methods increased markedly after termination of extracorporeal circulation (percentage error 56%).
Conclusion: The repeatability of COPAC, as well as of COPW, is reduced in patients with aortic stenosis. The repeatability of both methods, as well as the agreement between methods, decreased markedly immediately after termination of cardiopulmonary bypass.
1 Pinsky MR. Hemodynamic monitoring over the past 10 years. Crit Care 2006; 10: 117.[Medline]
2 Rodig G, Prasser C, Keyl C, Liebold A, Hobbhahn J. Continuous cardiac output measurement: pulse contour analysis vs thermodilution technique in cardiac surgical patients. Br J Anaesth 1999; 82: 525–30.
3 Opdam HI, Wan L, Bellomo R. A pilot assessment of the FloTrac(TM) cardiac output monitoring system. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33: 344–9.[Medline]
4 Sander M, Spies CD, Grubitzsch H, Foer A, Muller M, von Heymann C. Comparison of uncalibrated arterial waveform analysis in cardiac surgery patients with thermodilution cardiac output measurements. Crit Care 2006; 10: R164.[Medline]
5 Mayer J, Boldt J, Schollhorn T, Rohm KD, Mengistu AM, Suttner S. Semi-invasive monitoring of cardiac output by a new device using arterial pressure waveform analysis: a comparison with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth 2007; 98: 176–82.
6 Manecke GR Jr, Auger WR. Cardiac output determination from the arterial pressure wave: clinical testing of a novel algorithm that does not require calibration. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2007; 21: 3–7.[Medline]
7 McGee WT, Horswell JL, Calderon J, et al. Validation of a continuous, arterial pressure-based cardiac output measurement: a multicenter, prospective clinical trial. Crit Care 2007; 11: R105.[Medline]
8 Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 135–60.
9 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–10.[Medline]
10 Critchley LA, Critchley JA. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput 1999; 15: 85–91.[Medline]
11 Stetz CW, Miller RG, Kelly GE, Raffin TA. Reliability of the thermodilution method in the determination of cardiac output in clinical practice. Am Rev Respir Dis 1982; 126: 1001–4.[Medline]
12 Mackenzie JD, Haites NE, Rawles JM. Method of assessing the reproducibility of blood flow measurement: factors influencing the performance of thermodilution cardiac output computers. Br Heart J 1986; 55: 14–24.
13 LaMantia KR, O’Connor T, Barash PG. Comparing methods of measurement: an alternative approach. Anesthesiology 1990; 72: 781–3.[Medline]
14 Stevens JH, Raffin TA, Mihm FG, Rosenthal MH, Stetz CW. Thermodilution cardiac output measurement. Effects of the respiratory cycle on its reproducibility. JAMA 1985; 253: 2240–2.[Abstract]
15 Latson TW, Whitten CW, O’Flaherty D. Ventilation, thermal noise, and errors in cardiac output measurements after cardiopulmonary bypass. Anesthesiology 1993; 79: 1233–43.[Medline]
16 O’Rourke MF. Vascular impedance in studies of arterial and cardiac function. Physiol Rev 1982; 62: 570–623.
17 Headley JM. Arterial pressure-based technologies: a new trend in cardiac output monitoring. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am 2006; 18: 179–87.[Medline]
18 Zhao X, Mashikian JS, Panzica P, Lerner A, Park KW, Comunale ME. Comparison of thermodilution bolus cardiac output and Doppler cardiac output in the early post-cardiopulmonary bypass period. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2003; 17: 193–8.[Medline]
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
