Literature DB >> 23837860

Evaluation of cardiac output in intensive care using a non-invasive arterial pulse contour technique (Nexfin(®)) compared with echocardiography.

O Taton1, D Fagnoul, D De Backer, J-L Vincent.   

Abstract

In this prospective study, cardiac output was measured in 38 intensive care unit patients before and after a fluid challenge, using both pulse contour analysis (Nexfin(®); BMEYE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and transthoracic echocardiography. The ability of the Nexfin device to detect significant changes in the velocity-time integral was evaluated. The pulse wave could not be detected by the Nexfin device in five patients (13%), leaving 33 patients for analysis. The Nexfin device adequately tracked changes in the velocity-time integral in 20 (61%) patients. Using a cut-off of a 10% increase in cardiac output estimated by the Nexfin or by echocardiography, the sensitivity of the Nexfin device to detect a response to fluid challenge was 47%, with specificity 81% and accuracy 64%. The percentage error between the Nexfin and echocardiography was 448%; lower limit of agreement -48% (95% CI -62 to -36%) and upper limit of agreement, 32% (95% CI 20-45%). We conclude that the Nexfin device does not adequately track changes in cardiac output in critically ill patients.
© 2013 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23837860     DOI: 10.1111/anae.12341

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesthesia        ISSN: 0003-2409            Impact factor:   6.955


  7 in total

1.  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

2.  Importance of re-calibration time on pulse contour analysis agreement with thermodilution measurements of cardiac output: a retrospective analysis of intensive care unit patients.

Authors:  Christopher G Scully; Shanti Gomatam; Shawn Forrest; David G Strauss
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  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

4.  Non-invasive measurements of pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation in anesthetized patients using the Nexfin blood pressure monitor.

Authors:  Jurre Stens; Jeroen Oeben; Ab A Van Dusseldorp; Christa Boer
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-08-29       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 5.  What is the impact of the fluid challenge technique on diagnosis of fluid responsiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Laura Toscani; Hollmann D Aya; Dimitra Antonakaki; Davide Bastoni; Ximena Watson; Nish Arulkumaran; Andrew Rhodes; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 9.097

6.  Hemodynamic Predictors for Sepsis-Induced Acute Kidney Injury: A Preliminary Study.

Authors:  Oana Antal; Elena Ștefănescu; Monica Mleșnițe; Andrei Mihai Bălan; Alexandra Caziuc; Natalia Hagău
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-01-06       Impact factor: 4.241

7.  Changes in central venous-to-arterial carbon dioxide tension induced by fluid bolus in critically ill patients.

Authors:  Charalampos Pierrakos; David De Bels; Thomas Nguyen; Dimitrios Velissaris; Rachid Attou; Jacques Devriendt; Patrick M Honore; Fabio Silvio Taccone; Daniel De Backer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-09-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.