Determination of the precision error of the pulmonary artery thermodilution catheter using an in vitro continuous flow test rig.

BACKGROUND: Thermodilution cardiac output using a pulmonary artery catheter is the reference method against which all new methods of cardiac output measurement are judged. However, thermodilution lacks precision and has a quoted precision error of ± 20%. There is uncertainty about its true precision and this causes difficulty when validating new cardiac output technology. Our aim in this investigation was to determine the current precision error of thermodilution measurements.
METHODS: A test rig through which water circulated at different constant rates with ports to insert catheters into a flow chamber was assembled. Flow rate was measured by an externally placed transonic flowprobe and meter. The meter was calibrated by timed filling of a cylinder. Arrow and Edwards 7Fr thermodilution catheters, connected to a Siemens SC9000 cardiac output monitor, were tested. Thermodilution readings were made by injecting 5 mL of ice-cold water. Precision error was divided into random and systematic components, which were determined separately. Between-readings (random) variability was determined for each catheter by taking sets of 10 readings at different flow rates. Coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated for each set and averaged. Between-catheter systems (systematic) variability was derived by plotting calibration lines for sets of catheters. Slopes were used to estimate the systematic component. Performances of 3 cardiac output monitors were compared: Siemens SC9000, Siemens Sirecust 1261, and Philips MP50.
RESULTS: Five Arrow and 5 Edwards catheters were tested using the Siemens SC9000 monitor. Flow rates between 0.7 and 7.0 L/min were studied. The CV (random error) for Arrow was 5.4% and for Edwards was 4.8%. The random precision error was ± 10.0% (95% confidence limits). CV (systematic error) was 5.8% and 6.0%, respectively. The systematic precision error was ± 11.6%. The total precision error of a single thermodilution reading was ± 15.3% and ± 13.0% for triplicate readings. Precision error increased by 45% when using the Sirecust monitor and 100% when using the Philips monitor.
CONCLUSION: In vitro testing of pulmonary artery catheters enabled us to measure both the random and systematic error components of thermodilution cardiac output measurement, and thus calculate the precision error. Using the Siemens monitor, we established a precision error of ± 15.3% for single and ± 13.0% for triplicate reading, which was similar to the previous estimate of ± 20%. However, this precision error was significantly worsened by using the Sirecust and Philips monitors. Clinicians should recognize that the precision error of thermodilution cardiac output is dependent on the selection of catheter and monitor model.