OBJECTIVE: Transit-time flow measurement is widely accepted as an intra-operative assessment in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, the two most commonly applied flowmeters, manufactured by MediStim ASA and Transonic Inc., have different default filter settings of 20 and 10 Hz, respectively. This may cause different flow measurements, which will influence the reported results. The aim was to compare pulsatility index (PI) values recorded by the MediStim and Transonic flowmeters in two different clinical settings: (1) analysis of the flow patterns recorded simultaneously by both flowmeters in the same CABGs; and (2) evaluation of flow patterns under different levels of filter settings in the same grafts. METHODS: Graft flow and PI were measured using the two different flowmeters simultaneously in 19 bypass grafts. Finally, eight grafts were assessed under different digital filter settings at 5, 10, 20, 30, 50 and 100 Hz. RESULTS: The Transonic flowmeter provided substantially lower PI as compared with the MediStim flowmeter. By increasing the filter setting in the flowmeter, PI increased considerably. CONCLUSIONS: The Transonic flowmeter displayed a lower PI than the MediStim, due to a lower filter setting. In the Transonic,flow signals are filtered at a lower level, rendering a 'smoother' pattern of flow curves. Because different filter settings determine different PIs, caution must be taken when flow values and flowmeters are compared. The type of flowmeter should be indicated whenever graft flow measurements and derived indexes are provided [corrected]. Copyright 2009 European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: Transit-time flow measurement is widely accepted as an intra-operative assessment in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, the two most commonly applied flowmeters, manufactured by MediStim ASA and Transonic Inc., have different default filter settings of 20 and 10 Hz, respectively. This may cause different flow measurements, which will influence the reported results. The aim was to compare pulsatility index (PI) values recorded by the MediStim and Transonic flowmeters in two different clinical settings: (1) analysis of the flow patterns recorded simultaneously by both flowmeters in the same CABGs; and (2) evaluation of flow patterns under different levels of filter settings in the same grafts. METHODS: Graft flow and PI were measured using the two different flowmeters simultaneously in 19 bypass grafts. Finally, eight grafts were assessed under different digital filter settings at 5, 10, 20, 30, 50 and 100 Hz. RESULTS: The Transonic flowmeter provided substantially lower PI as compared with the MediStim flowmeter. By increasing the filter setting in the flowmeter, PI increased considerably. CONCLUSIONS: The Transonic flowmeter displayed a lower PI than the MediStim, due to a lower filter setting. In the Transonic,flow signals are filtered at a lower level, rendering a 'smoother' pattern of flow curves. Because different filter settings determine different PIs, caution must be taken when flow values and flowmeters are compared. The type of flowmeter should be indicated whenever graft flow measurements and derived indexes are provided [corrected]. Copyright 2009 European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.