Literature DB >> 22608581

Comparison of noninvasive cardiac output measurements using the Nexfin monitoring device and the esophageal Doppler.

Guo Chen1, Lingzhong Meng, Brenton Alexander, Nam Phuong Tran, Zeev N Kain, Maxime Cannesson.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of cardiac output (CO) measurements obtained using the Nexfin device in comparison to those obtained with the esophageal Doppler in steady-state conditions and after phenylephrine administration.
DESIGN: Prospective observational study.
SETTING: Operating room of a North American academic medical center. PATIENTS: 25 ASA physical status 1, 2, and 3 patients referred for abdominal or orthopedic surgeries.
INTERVENTIONS: After endotracheal intubation, patients who presented with a 20% or greater decrease in mean arterial pressure (MAP) received an intravenous (IV) bolus of 100 μg of phenylephrine. If MAP was still 20% lower than the patient's baseline level at least 10 minutes after the first vasopressor treatment, a second bolus of 100 μg of phenylephrine was given. MEASUREMENTS: CO was measured simultaneously by esophageal Doppler (CO(ED)) and Nexfin (CO(NXF)) at baseline and when blood pressure peaked after an IV 100 μg phenylephrine bolus. Comparisons were then made between the two devices to evaluate the ability of the Nexfin device to track changes in CO. MAIN
RESULTS: 66 pairs of data were obtained. Mean CO(ED) and CO(NXF) were 4.7 ± 1.8 L/min and 5.6 ± 2.0 L/min, respectively. There was a significant relationship between CO(ED) and CO(NXF) (r(2) = 0.82; P < 0.001). The agreement between CO(ED) and CO(NXF) was 0.88 ± 0.86 L/min (Bland Altman). The mean percent error (Critchley and Critchley) of CO(NXF) versus CO(ED) was 37%. Trending analysis found a 94% concordance between changes in CO(ED) and CO(NXF) after phenylephrine administration.
CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative CO measurement using the Nexfin device has a strong correlation with CO measured by esophageal Doppler. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22608581     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2011.08.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Anesth        ISSN: 0952-8180            Impact factor:   9.452


  30 in total

1.  Effect of Interleukin-1 Blockade on Left Ventricular Systolic Performance and Work: A Post Hoc Pooled Analysis of 2 Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Leo F Buckley; Salvatore Carbone; Cory R Trankle; Justin M Canada; Claudia Oddi Erdle; Jessica A Regan; Michele M Viscusi; Dinesh Kadariya; Hayley Billingsley; Ross Arena; Antonio Abbate; Benjamin W Van Tassell
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Pharmacol       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.105

2.  Reliability of a new 4th generation FloTrac algorithm to track cardiac output changes in patients receiving phenylephrine.

Authors:  Fuhai Ji; Jian Li; Neal Fleming; David Rose; Hong Liu
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Accuracy of the ClearSight™ system in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery.

Authors:  Miho Sumiyoshi; Takuma Maeda; Erika Miyazaki; Naoshi Hotta; Hitoshi Sato; Eisuke Hamaguchi; Hiroko Kanazawa; Yoshihiko Ohnishi; Masataka Kamei
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2019-03-23       Impact factor: 2.078

4.  Influence of menopause status and age on integrated central and peripheral hemodynamic responses to subsystolic cuffing during submaximal exercise.

Authors:  Erik H Van Iterson; Courtney Gramm; Nicholas R Randall; Thomas P Olson
Journal:  Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 4.733

Review 5.  [Meta-analyses on measurement precision of non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring technologies in adults].

Authors:  G Pestel; K Fukui; M Higashi; I Schmidtmann; C Werner
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 6.  Non-invasive continuous blood pressure monitoring: a review of current applications.

Authors:  Elena Chung; Guo Chen; Brenton Alexander; Maxime Cannesson
Journal:  Front Med       Date:  2013-01-23       Impact factor: 4.592

7.  Less invasive hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients.

Authors:  Jean-Louis Teboul; Bernd Saugel; Maurizio Cecconi; Daniel De Backer; Christoph K Hofer; Xavier Monnet; Azriel Perel; Michael R Pinsky; Daniel A Reuter; Andrew Rhodes; Pierre Squara; Jean-Louis Vincent; Thomas W Scheeren
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-05-07       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  Impact of continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitoring on hemodynamic fluctuation during general anesthesia: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Takashi Juri; Koichi Suehiro; Aya Kimura; Akira Mukai; Katsuaki Tanaka; Tokuhiro Yamada; Takashi Mori; Kiyonobu Nishikawa
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 9.  Pulse waveform hemodynamic monitoring devices: recent advances and the place in goal-directed therapy in cardiac surgical patients.

Authors:  Adham Hendy; Şerban Bubenek
Journal:  Rom J Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  2016-04

10.  The haemodynamic effects of intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) in healthy volunteers: a double-blind, randomized, triple crossover trial.

Authors:  Elizabeth Chiam; Laurence Weinberg; Michael Bailey; Larry McNicol; Rinaldo Bellomo
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 4.335

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.