Fang-Ping Bao1, Jian Wu. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac output monitoring is important for critical patients. This study aimed to determine the delayed response of continuous cardiac output (CCO) thermodilution measurement, whether CCO and bolus cardiac output (BCO) thermodilution agree sufficiently to be used interchangeably, and whether CCO monitoring is reliable for patients undergoing liver transplantation. METHODS: Thirteen patients undergoing liver transplantation without veno-venous bypass were studied (37-66 years old, weight 46-75 kg). Continuous and bolus thermodilution measurements were performed at predefined time points using an "Opti-Q" SvO2/CCO monitor (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL, USA). Bias and 95% limits of agreement were calculated according to Bland and Altman analysis. The limits of agreement by which two methods are judged to be interchangeable were defined in advance as +/-(13%XBCOmean) L/min. The repeatability and relative error of CCO, and the differences between CCO and the mean of the two measurements were calculated. RESULTS: Cardiac output measurements yielded 196 data pairs with ranges of 1.9 to 17.9 L/min for CCO and 2.1 to 18.3 L/min for BCO. The response time of CCO was delayed in the early phases after caval clamping and after reperfusion. At most of the measurement points, bias and 95% limits of agreement were -0.18+/-1.91 L/min. 95% limits of agreement did not fall within the predetermined limits of agreement of +/-1.14 L/min. The repeatability coefficient of CCO was 0.36 L/min and the relative error was 4.6+/-4.7%. The mean difference between CCO and the average of the two methods was -0.09 L/min (0.49 L/min). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing liver transplantation, the delayed response of CCO limits its application during the early phases after caval clamping and after reperfusion of the graft. The two methods are not interchangeable even in hemodynamic stability. Continuous thermodilution monitoring, however, is reliable or acceptable for clinical purposes.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac output monitoring is important for critical patients. This study aimed to determine the delayed response of continuous cardiac output (CCO) thermodilution measurement, whether CCO and bolus cardiac output (BCO) thermodilution agree sufficiently to be used interchangeably, and whether CCO monitoring is reliable for patients undergoing liver transplantation. METHODS: Thirteen patients undergoing liver transplantation without veno-venous bypass were studied (37-66 years old, weight 46-75 kg). Continuous and bolus thermodilution measurements were performed at predefined time points using an "Opti-Q" SvO2/CCO monitor (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL, USA). Bias and 95% limits of agreement were calculated according to Bland and Altman analysis. The limits of agreement by which two methods are judged to be interchangeable were defined in advance as +/-(13%XBCOmean) L/min. The repeatability and relative error of CCO, and the differences between CCO and the mean of the two measurements were calculated. RESULTS: Cardiac output measurements yielded 196 data pairs with ranges of 1.9 to 17.9 L/min for CCO and 2.1 to 18.3 L/min for BCO. The response time of CCO was delayed in the early phases after caval clamping and after reperfusion. At most of the measurement points, bias and 95% limits of agreement were -0.18+/-1.91 L/min. 95% limits of agreement did not fall within the predetermined limits of agreement of +/-1.14 L/min. The repeatability coefficient of CCO was 0.36 L/min and the relative error was 4.6+/-4.7%. The mean difference between CCO and the average of the two methods was -0.09 L/min (0.49 L/min). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing liver transplantation, the delayed response of CCO limits its application during the early phases after caval clamping and after reperfusion of the graft. The two methods are not interchangeable even in hemodynamic stability. Continuous thermodilution monitoring, however, is reliable or acceptable for clinical purposes.