Literature DB >> 23361128

Cardiac output monitoring in septic shock: evaluation of the third-generation Flotrac-Vigileo.

Sophie Marqué1, Antoine Gros, Loic Chimot, Arnaud Gacouin, Sylvain Lavoué, Christophe Camus, Yves Le Tulzo.   

Abstract

Continuous cardiac index (CI) monitoring is frequently used in critically ill patients. Few studies have compared the pulse contour-based device FloTrac/Vigileo to pulmonary artery thermodilution (PAC) in terms of accuracy for CI monitoring in septic shock. The aim of our study was to compare the third-generation FloTrac/Vigileo to PAC in septic shock. Eighteen patients with septic shock requiring monitoring by PAC were included in this study. We monitored CI using both FloTrac/Vigileo and continuous thermodilution (PAC-CI). Hemodynamic data were recorded every hour or every 2 min during fluid challenges. The primary endpoint was the global agreement of all CI-paired measurements determined using the Bland-Altman method adapted to replicated data. We tested the linearity of the bias by regression analysis, and compared the reactivity of the 2 techniques during fluid challenges. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis tested the ability of FloTrac/Vigileo to detect concordant and significative CI changes, using PAC-CI as the reference method. Overall, 1,201 paired CI measurements were recorded. The Bland-Altman analysis for global agreement of the 2 techniques showed a bias of -0.1 ± 2.1 L min(-1) m(-2) and a percentage error of 64 %. The overall correlation coefficient between PAC-CI and FloTrac/Vigileo CI was 0.47 (p < 0.01), with r(2) = 0.22. The area under the curve of the ROC curve for detecting concordant and significant changes in CI was 0.72 (0.53; 0.87). In our study, third-generation Flowtrac-Vigileo appears to be too inaccurate to be recommended for CI monitoring in septic shock.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23361128     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-013-9431-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  37 in total

1.  Continuous cardiac output by pulse contour analysis?

Authors:  J J van Lieshout; K H Wesseling
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 9.166

2.  Cardiac output derived from arterial pressure waveform analysis without calibration vs. thermodilution in septic shock: evolving accuracy of software versions.

Authors:  Cornelis Slagt; Jan Beute; Martijn Hoeksema; Ignacio Malagon; Jan-Willem R Mulder; Johan A B Groeneveld
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Continuous cardiac output monitoring during adult liver transplantation: thermal filament technique versus bolus thermodilution.

Authors:  C A Greim; N Roewer; H Thiel; G Laux; J Schulte am Esch
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 5.108

Review 4.  2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference.

Authors:  Mitchell M Levy; Mitchell P Fink; John C Marshall; Edward Abraham; Derek Angus; Deborah Cook; Jonathan Cohen; Steven M Opal; Jean-Louis Vincent; Graham Ramsay
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 7.598

5.  A pilot assessment of the FloTrac cardiac output monitoring system.

Authors:  Helen Ingrid Opdam; Li Wan; Rinaldo Bellomo
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2006-10-25       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 6.  Minimally invasive measurement of cardiac output during surgery and critical care: a meta-analysis of accuracy and precision.

Authors:  Philip J Peyton; Simon W Chong
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 7.892

7.  Uncalibrated pulse contour-derived stroke volume variation predicts fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients undergoing liver transplantation.

Authors:  M Biais; K Nouette-Gaulain; V Cottenceau; P Revel; F Sztark
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2008-10-12       Impact factor: 9.166

8.  Arterial pulse cardiac output agreement with thermodilution in patients in hyperdynamic conditions.

Authors:  Giorgio Della Rocca; Maria Gabriella Costa; Paolo Chiarandini; Gaia Bertossi; Manuela Lugano; Livia Pompei; Cecilia Coccia; Mauricio Sainz-Barriga; Paolo Pietropaoli
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 2.628

9.  Cardiac output monitoring: comparison of a new arterial pressure waveform analysis to the bolus thermodilution technique in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.

Authors:  Yatin Mehta; Rajesh Kumar Chand; Ravindra Sawhney; Milind Bhise; Ajmer Singh; Naresh Trehan
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.628

10.  Comparison of monitoring performance of Bioreactance vs. pulse contour during lung recruitment maneuvers.

Authors:  Pierre Squara; Dominique Rotcajg; Dominique Denjean; Philippe Estagnasie; Alain Brusset
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2009-07-28       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  11 in total

1.  Continuous cardiac output measurement by un-calibrated pulse wave analysis and pulmonary artery catheter in patients with septic shock.

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

2.  The ability of the Vigileo-FloTrac system to measure cardiac output and track cardiac output changes during one-lung ventilation.

Authors:  Koichi Suehiro; Katsuaki Tanaka; Tokuhiro Yamada; Tadashi Matsuura; Takashi Mori; Tomoharu Funao; Kiyonobu Nishikawa
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 3.  Minimally invasive or noninvasive cardiac output measurement: an update.

Authors:  Lisa Sangkum; Geoffrey L Liu; Ling Yu; Hong Yan; Alan D Kaye; Henry Liu
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 2.078

4.  Evaluation of the use of the fourth version FloTrac system in cardiac output measurement before and after cardiopulmonary bypass.

Authors:  Sheng-Yi Lin; An-Hsun Chou; Yung-Fong Tsai; Su-Wei Chang; Min-Wen Yang; Pei-Chi Ting; Chun-Yu Chen
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 2.502

5.  Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

Authors:  Maurizio Cecconi; Daniel De Backer; Massimo Antonelli; Richard Beale; Jan Bakker; Christoph Hofer; Roman Jaeschke; Alexandre Mebazaa; Michael R Pinsky; Jean Louis Teboul; Jean Louis Vincent; Andrew Rhodes
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Fluid responsiveness is about stroke volume, and not pulse pressure Yogi: the power of Doppler fluid management and cardiovascular monitoring.

Authors:  Rob Phillips; Joe Brierley
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 7.  Hemodynamic monitoring in the critically ill: an overview of current cardiac output monitoring methods.

Authors:  Johan Huygh; Yannick Peeters; Jelle Bernards; Manu L N G Malbrain
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-12-16

8.  Comparison of pulmonary artery catheter, echocardiography, and arterial waveform analysis monitoring in predicting the hemodynamic state during and after cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Paul Power; Allison Bone; Nicholas Simpson; Cheng-Hon Yap; Simon Gower; Michael Bailey
Journal:  Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep

9.  Internal jugular vein variability predicts fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgical patients with mechanical ventilation.

Authors:  Guo-Guang Ma; Guang-Wei Hao; Xiao-Mei Yang; Du-Ming Zhu; Lan Liu; Hua Liu; Guo-Wei Tu; Zhe Luo
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 6.925

10.  Comparison the accuracy and trending ability of cardiac index measured by the fourth-generation of FloTrac with the PiCCO device in septic shock patients.

Authors:  Bodin Khwannimit; Rattina Jomsuriya
Journal:  Turk J Med Sci       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 0.973

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.