BACKGROUND: Until now, tools for continuous cardiac output (CO) monitoring have been validated as if they were tools for snapshot measurements. Most authors have compared variations in cardiac output between two time-points and used Bland-Altman representations to describe the agreement between these variations. The impacts of time and of repetitive measurements over time are not taken into consideration. PURPOSE: This special article proposes a conceptual framework for the validation of CO monitoring devices. Four quality criteria are suggested and studied: (1) accuracy (small bias), (2) precision (small random error of measurements), (3) short response time and (4) accurate amplitude response. Because a tolerance is obviously admitted for each of these four criteria, we propose to add as a fifth criterion the ability to detect significant CO directional changes. Other important issues in designing studies to validate CO monitoring tools are reviewed: choice of patient population to be studied, choice of the reference method, data acquisition method, data acceptability checking, data segmentation and final evaluation of reliability. CONCLUSION: Application of this framework underlines the importance of precision and time response for clinical acceptability of monitoring tools.
BACKGROUND: Until now, tools for continuous cardiac output (CO) monitoring have been validated as if they were tools for snapshot measurements. Most authors have compared variations in cardiac output between two time-points and used Bland-Altman representations to describe the agreement between these variations. The impacts of time and of repetitive measurements over time are not taken into consideration. PURPOSE: This special article proposes a conceptual framework for the validation of CO monitoring devices. Four quality criteria are suggested and studied: (1) accuracy (small bias), (2) precision (small random error of measurements), (3) short response time and (4) accurate amplitude response. Because a tolerance is obviously admitted for each of these four criteria, we propose to add as a fifth criterion the ability to detect significant CO directional changes. Other important issues in designing studies to validate CO monitoring tools are reviewed: choice of patient population to be studied, choice of the reference method, data acquisition method, data acceptability checking, data segmentation and final evaluation of reliability. CONCLUSION: Application of this framework underlines the importance of precision and time response for clinical acceptability of monitoring tools.
Authors: Pierre Squara; Etienne Fourquet; Luc Jacquet; Alain Broccard; Thomas Uhlig; Andrew Rhodes; Jan Bakker; Claude Perret Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2003-03-25 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: A Rubini; D Del Monte; V Catena; I Attar; M Cesaro; D Soranzo; G Rattazzi; G L Alati Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Brahim Benomar; Alexandre Ouattara; Philippe Estagnasie; Alain Brusset; Pierre Squara Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-07-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Hannah Rosenblum; Stephen Helmke; Paula Williams; Sergio Teruya; Margaret Jones; Daniel Burkhoff; Donna Mancini; Mathew S Maurer Journal: Congest Heart Fail Date: 2010-10-19
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 17.440