OBJECTIVE: The modified algorithm for the non-invasive determination of cardiac output (CO) by electrical bioimpedance-electrical velocimetry (EV)-has been reported to give reliable results in comparison with echocardiography and pulmonary arterial thermodilution (PA-TD) in patients either before or after cardiac surgery. The present study was designed to determine whether EV-CO measurements reflect intraindividual changes in CO during cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Operating room (OR) and intensive care unit (ICU) of a university hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty-nine patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: CO was determined simultaneously by PA-TD and EV after induction of anesthesia (t1) and 4.9+/-3.5 h after ICU admission (t2). RESULTS: TD-CO was 3.9+/-1.4 and 5.4+/-1.1 l/min at t1 and t2 (p < 0.0001). EV-CO was 4.3+/-1.1 and 4.9+/-1.5 l/min at t1 and t2 (p = 0.013). Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of -0.4 l/min and 0.4 l/min and a precision of 3.2 and 3.6 l/min (34.3% and 67.4%) at t1 and t2, respectively. Analysis of the individual pre- to postoperative changes in CO with both methods revealed bidirectional changes in n = 12 patients and unidirectional changes with a difference greater than 50% and less than 50% in n = 9 and n = 8 patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The disagreement between PA-TD and EV-CO measurements after anesthesia induction and after ICU admission, as well as the fact that thoracic bioimpedance did not adequately reflect pre- to postoperative changes in CO, questions the reliability of EV-CO measurements in cardiac surgery patients and contrasts sharply with previous studies.
OBJECTIVE: The modified algorithm for the non-invasive determination of cardiac output (CO) by electrical bioimpedance-electrical velocimetry (EV)-has been reported to give reliable results in comparison with echocardiography and pulmonary arterial thermodilution (PA-TD) in patients either before or after cardiac surgery. The present study was designed to determine whether EV-CO measurements reflect intraindividual changes in CO during cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Operating room (OR) and intensive care unit (ICU) of a university hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty-nine patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: CO was determined simultaneously by PA-TD and EV after induction of anesthesia (t1) and 4.9+/-3.5 h after ICU admission (t2). RESULTS: TD-CO was 3.9+/-1.4 and 5.4+/-1.1 l/min at t1 and t2 (p < 0.0001). EV-CO was 4.3+/-1.1 and 4.9+/-1.5 l/min at t1 and t2 (p = 0.013). Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of -0.4 l/min and 0.4 l/min and a precision of 3.2 and 3.6 l/min (34.3% and 67.4%) at t1 and t2, respectively. Analysis of the individual pre- to postoperative changes in CO with both methods revealed bidirectional changes in n = 12 patients and unidirectional changes with a difference greater than 50% and less than 50% in n = 9 and n = 8 patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The disagreement between PA-TD and EV-CO measurements after anesthesia induction and after ICU admission, as well as the fact that thoracic bioimpedance did not adequately reflect pre- to postoperative changes in CO, questions the reliability of EV-CO measurements in cardiac surgery patients and contrasts sharply with previous studies.
Authors: Peter Andrews; Elie Azoulay; Massimo Antonelli; Laurent Brochard; Christian Brun-Buisson; Geoffrey Dobb; Jean-Yves Fagon; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Jordi Mancebo; Philipp Metnitz; Stefano Nava; Jerome Pugin; Michael Pinsky; Peter Radermacher; Christian Richard; Robert Tasker; Benoit Vallet Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-01-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: C Schmidt; G Theilmeier; H Van Aken; P Korsmeier; S P Wirtz; E Berendes; A Hoffmeier; A Meissner Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2005-09-09 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: B J van der Meer; J P de Vries; W O Schreuder; E R Bulder; L Eysman; P M de Vries Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: B J van der Meer; H H Woltjer; A M Sousman; W O Schreuder; E R Bulder; M A Huybregts; P M de Vries Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Stefan Suttner; Thilo Schöllhorn; Joachim Boldt; Jochen Mayer; Kerstin D Röhm; Katrin Lang; Swen N Piper Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-10-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Goran Hedenstierna; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Philipp Metnitz; Jerme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Frederik Trinkmann; Manuel Berger; Ursula Hoffmann; Martin Borggrefe; Jens J Kaden; Joachim Saur Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Frederik Trinkmann; Manuel Berger; Christina Doesch; Theano Papavassiliu; Stefan O Schoenberg; Martin Borggrefe; Jens J Kaden; Joachim Saur Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-06-27 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Martin Ernst Blohm; Denise Obrecht; Jana Hartwich; Goetz Christoph Mueller; Jan Felix Kersten; Jochen Weil; Dominique Singer Journal: Crit Care Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 9.097