PURPOSE: Second-generation FloTrac software has been shown to reliably measure cardiac output (CO) in cardiac surgical patients. However, concerns have been raised regarding its accuracy in vasoplegic states. The aim of the present multicenter study was to investigate the accuracy of the third-generation software in patients with sepsis, particularly when total systemic vascular resistance (TSVR) is low. METHODS: Fifty-eight septic patients were included in this prospective observational study in four university-affiliated ICUs. Reference CO was measured by bolus pulmonary thermodilution (iCO) using 3-5 cold saline boluses. Simultaneously, CO was computed from the arterial pressure curve recorded on a computer using the second-generation (CO(G2)) and third-generation (CO(G3)) FloTrac software. CO was also measured by semi-continuous pulmonary thermodilution (CCO). RESULTS: A total of 401 simultaneous measurements of iCO, CO(G2), CO(G3), and CCO were recorded. The mean (95%CI) biases between CO(G2) and iCO, CO(G3) and iCO, and CCO and iCO were -10 (-15 to -5)% [-0.8 (-1.1 to -0.4) L/min], 0 (-4 to 4)% [0 (-0.3 to 0.3) L/min], and 9 (6-13)% [0.7 (0.5-1.0) L/min], respectively. The percentage errors were 29 (20-37)% for CO(G2), 30 (24-37)% for CO(G3), and 28 (22-34)% for CCO. The difference between iCO and CO(G2) was significantly correlated with TSVR (r(2) = 0.37, p < 0.0001). A very weak (r(2) = 0.05) relationship was also observed for the difference between iCO and CO(G3). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with sepsis, the third-generation FloTrac software is more accurate, as precise, and less influenced by TSVR than the second-generation software.
PURPOSE: Second-generation FloTrac software has been shown to reliably measure cardiac output (CO) in cardiac surgical patients. However, concerns have been raised regarding its accuracy in vasoplegic states. The aim of the present multicenter study was to investigate the accuracy of the third-generation software in patients with sepsis, particularly when total systemic vascular resistance (TSVR) is low. METHODS: Fifty-eight septic patients were included in this prospective observational study in four university-affiliated ICUs. Reference CO was measured by bolus pulmonary thermodilution (iCO) using 3-5 cold saline boluses. Simultaneously, CO was computed from the arterial pressure curve recorded on a computer using the second-generation (CO(G2)) and third-generation (CO(G3)) FloTrac software. CO was also measured by semi-continuous pulmonary thermodilution (CCO). RESULTS: A total of 401 simultaneous measurements of iCO, CO(G2), CO(G3), and CCO were recorded. The mean (95%CI) biases between CO(G2) and iCO, CO(G3) and iCO, and CCO and iCO were -10 (-15 to -5)% [-0.8 (-1.1 to -0.4) L/min], 0 (-4 to 4)% [0 (-0.3 to 0.3) L/min], and 9 (6-13)% [0.7 (0.5-1.0) L/min], respectively. The percentage errors were 29 (20-37)% for CO(G2), 30 (24-37)% for CO(G3), and 28 (22-34)% for CCO. The difference between iCO and CO(G2) was significantly correlated with TSVR (r(2) = 0.37, p < 0.0001). A very weak (r(2) = 0.05) relationship was also observed for the difference between iCO and CO(G3). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with sepsis, the third-generation FloTrac software is more accurate, as precise, and less influenced by TSVR than the second-generation software.
Authors: G Biancofiore; L A H Critchley; A Lee; L Bindi; M Bisà; M Esposito; L Meacci; R Mozzo; P DeSimone; L Urbani; F Filipponi Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Matthieu Biais; Karine Nouette-Gaulain; Vincent Cottenceau; Alain Vallet; Jean François Cochard; Philippe Revel; François Sztark Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: T Dorman; M J Breslow; P A Lipsett; J M Rosenberg; J R Balser; Y Almog; B A Rosenfeld Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Christopher Prasser; Sylvia Bele; Cornelius Keyl; Stefan Schweiger; Benedikt Trabold; Matthias Amann; Julia Welnhofer; Christoph Wiesenack Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2007-11-09 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Roland Tomasi; Stephan Prueckner; Stephan Czerner; Renè Schramm; Gerhard Preissler; Bernhard Zwißler; Vera von Dossow-Hanfstingl Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Matthew Lee; Laurence Weinberg; Brett Pearce; Nicholas Scurrah; David A Story; Param Pillai; Peter R McCall; Larry P McNicol; Philip J Peyton Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Michael T Ganter; Jamal A Alhashemi; Adel M Al-Shabasy; Ursina M Schmid; Peter Schott; Sanaa A Shalabi; Ahmed M Badri; Sonja Hartnack; Christoph K Hofer Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Daniel De Backer; Jan Bakker; Maurizio Cecconi; Ludhmila Hajjar; Da Wei Liu; Suzanna Lobo; Xavier Monnet; Andrea Morelli; Sheila Neinan Myatra; Azriel Perel; Michael R Pinsky; Bernd Saugel; Jean-Louis Teboul; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 17.440