Abele Donati1, Andrea Carsetti2, Stefania Tondi2, Claudia Scorcella2, Roberta Domizi2, Elisa Damiani2, Vincenzo Gabbanelli2, Christopher Münch3, Erica Adrario2, Paolo Pelaia2, Maurizio Cecconi4. 1. Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, Università Politecnica delle Marche, via Tronto 10/A, 60126, Ancona, Italy. Electronic address: a.donati@univpm.it. 2. Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, Università Politecnica delle Marche, via Tronto 10/A, 60126, Ancona, Italy. 3. Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Cardiological Sciences, AOU Ospedali Riuniti, via Conca, 60126, Ancona, Italy. 4. Department of General Intensive Care, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust, SW17 0QT London, UK; St George's Medical School, SW17 0QT London, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many mini-invasive devices to monitor cardiac output (CO) have been introduced and, among them, the pressure recording analytical method (PRAM). The aim of this study was to assess the agreement of PRAM with the intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution and continuous pulmonary thermodilution in measuring CO in hemodynamically stabilized patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective clinical study in a mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) and in a postcardiac surgical ICU. Forty-eight patients were enrolled: 32 patients to the medical-surgical ICU monitored with PiCCO (Pulsion Medical System AG, Munich, Germany) and 16 were cardiac patients monitored with Vigilance (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). RESULTS: A total of 112 measurements were made. Ninety-six comparisons of paired CO measurements were made in patients hospitalized in medical-surgical ICU; 16, in cardiac surgical patients. The mean Vigilance-CO was 4.49 ± 0.99 L/min (range, 2.80-5.90 L/min), and the mean PRAM-CO was 4.27 ± 0.88 L/min (range, 2.85-6.19 L/min). The correlation coefficient between Vigilance-CO and PRAM-CO was 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.94; P < .001). The bias was 0.22 ± 0.55 L/min with limits of agreement between 0.87 and 1.30 L/min. The percentage error was 25%. Mean TP-CO was 6.78 ± 2.04 L/min (range, 4.12-11.27 L/min), and the mean PRAM-CO was 6.11 ± 2.18 L/min (range, 2.82-10.90 L/min). The correlation coefficient between PiCCO-CO and PRAM-CO was 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.96; P < .0001). The bias was 0.67 ± 0.89 L/min with limits of agreement -1.07 and 2.41 L/min. The coefficient of variation for PiCCO was 4% ± 2%, and the coefficient of variation for PRAM was 10% ± 8%. The percentage error was 28%. CONCLUSIONS: The PRAM system showed good agreement with pulmonary artery catheter and PiCCO in hemodynamically stabilized patients.
PURPOSE: Many mini-invasive devices to monitor cardiac output (CO) have been introduced and, among them, the pressure recording analytical method (PRAM). The aim of this study was to assess the agreement of PRAM with the intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution and continuous pulmonary thermodilution in measuring CO in hemodynamically stabilized patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective clinical study in a mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) and in a postcardiac surgical ICU. Forty-eight patients were enrolled: 32 patients to the medical-surgical ICU monitored with PiCCO (Pulsion Medical System AG, Munich, Germany) and 16 were cardiac patients monitored with Vigilance (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). RESULTS: A total of 112 measurements were made. Ninety-six comparisons of paired CO measurements were made in patients hospitalized in medical-surgical ICU; 16, in cardiac surgical patients. The mean Vigilance-CO was 4.49 ± 0.99 L/min (range, 2.80-5.90 L/min), and the mean PRAM-CO was 4.27 ± 0.88 L/min (range, 2.85-6.19 L/min). The correlation coefficient between Vigilance-CO and PRAM-CO was 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.94; P < .001). The bias was 0.22 ± 0.55 L/min with limits of agreement between 0.87 and 1.30 L/min. The percentage error was 25%. Mean TP-CO was 6.78 ± 2.04 L/min (range, 4.12-11.27 L/min), and the mean PRAM-CO was 6.11 ± 2.18 L/min (range, 2.82-10.90 L/min). The correlation coefficient between PiCCO-CO and PRAM-CO was 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.96; P < .0001). The bias was 0.67 ± 0.89 L/min with limits of agreement -1.07 and 2.41 L/min. The coefficient of variation for PiCCO was 4% ± 2%, and the coefficient of variation for PRAM was 10% ± 8%. The percentage error was 28%. CONCLUSIONS: The PRAM system showed good agreement with pulmonary artery catheter and PiCCO in hemodynamically stabilized patients.
Authors: Maurizio Cecconi; Glenn Hernandez; Martin Dunser; Massimo Antonelli; Tim Baker; Jan Bakker; Jacques Duranteau; Sharon Einav; A B Johan Groeneveld; Tim Harris; Sameer Jog; Flavia R Machado; Mervyn Mer; M Ignacio Monge García; Sheila Nainan Myatra; Anders Perner; Jean-Louis Teboul; Jean-Louis Vincent; Daniel De Backer Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Fabio Guarracino; Baldassarre Ferro; Francesco Forfori; Pietro Bertini; Luana Magliacano; Michael R Pinsky Journal: Crit Care Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Javier Urbano; Jorge López; Rafael González; Sarah N Fernández; María José Solana; Blanca Toledo; Ángel Carrillo; Jesús López-Herce Journal: Intensive Care Med Exp Date: 2016-06-03