Karim Bendjelid1, Nicolas Schütz, Peter M Suter, Jacques-Andre Romand. 1. Geneva University Hospitals, Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anaesthesiology, Pharmacology and Surgical Intensive Care, 1211, Geneva 14, Switzerland. Karim.Bendjelid@hcuge.ch
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The interchangeability of continuous measurement of cardiac output (CO) with the traditional bolus method in patients after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is uncertain. DESIGN: Prospective observational clinical study. SETTING: A 20-bed surgical ICU at a university hospital. PATIENTS: Fourteen deeply sedated, ventilated, post-cardiac surgery patients, all equipped with a pulmonary artery catheter. INTERVENTIONS: Six hours after the end of the CPB, 56 simultaneous bolus and continuous measurements were compared by a linear regression analysis and Bland-Altman analysis. Bolus CO was estimated by averaging triplicate injections of 10 ml room-temperature NaCl 0.9%, delivered randomly during the respiratory cycle. A stringent maximum difference of 0.55 l min(-1) (about 10% of the mean bolus measured) was considered as a clinically acceptable agreement between the two types of measurements. To be interchangeable the limits of agreement (+/-2 SD of the mean difference between the two methods) should not exceed the chosen acceptable difference. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Continuous was correlated with bolus CO, with a correlation coefficient of r(2)=0.68. (p<0.01). The Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated an objective mean bias of 0.33+/-0.6 l min(-1) (confidence interval of -0.87-1.58) with 34% of measured values falling outside of the clinically acceptable limits. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that, in the first 6 h after CPB, continuous and bolus CO determinations are not interchangeable; one third of the values obtained by continuous CO fell outside the strict limits of clinically useful precision.
OBJECTIVE: The interchangeability of continuous measurement of cardiac output (CO) with the traditional bolus method in patients after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is uncertain. DESIGN: Prospective observational clinical study. SETTING: A 20-bed surgical ICU at a university hospital. PATIENTS: Fourteen deeply sedated, ventilated, post-cardiac surgery patients, all equipped with a pulmonary artery catheter. INTERVENTIONS: Six hours after the end of the CPB, 56 simultaneous bolus and continuous measurements were compared by a linear regression analysis and Bland-Altman analysis. Bolus CO was estimated by averaging triplicate injections of 10 ml room-temperature NaCl 0.9%, delivered randomly during the respiratory cycle. A stringent maximum difference of 0.55 l min(-1) (about 10% of the mean bolus measured) was considered as a clinically acceptable agreement between the two types of measurements. To be interchangeable the limits of agreement (+/-2 SD of the mean difference between the two methods) should not exceed the chosen acceptable difference. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Continuous was correlated with bolus CO, with a correlation coefficient of r(2)=0.68. (p<0.01). The Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated an objective mean bias of 0.33+/-0.6 l min(-1) (confidence interval of -0.87-1.58) with 34% of measured values falling outside of the clinically acceptable limits. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that, in the first 6 h after CPB, continuous and bolus CO determinations are not interchangeable; one third of the values obtained by continuous CO fell outside the strict limits of clinically useful precision.
Authors: James Dean Sandham; Russell Douglas Hull; Rollin Frederick Brant; Linda Knox; Graham Frederick Pineo; Christopher J Doig; Denny P Laporta; Sidney Viner; Louise Passerini; Hugh Devitt; Ann Kirby; Michael Jacka Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-01-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M L Yelderman; M A Ramsay; M D Quinn; A W Paulsen; R C McKown; P H Gillman Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 1992-06 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Pierre Squara; Maurizio Cecconi; Andrew Rhodes; Mervyn Singer; Jean-Daniel Chiche Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-07-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Laura Anneli Ylikauma; Pasi Petteri Ohtonen; Tiina Maria Erkinaro; Merja Annika Vakkala; Janne Henrik Liisanantti; Jari Uolevi Satta; Tatu Sakari Juvonen; Timo Ilari Kaakinen Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 1.977