Literature DB >> 26285740

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

Christopher G Scully1, Shanti Gomatam2, Shawn Forrest3, David G Strauss4.   

Abstract

We assessed the effect of re-calibration time on cardiac output estimation and trending performance in a retrospective analysis of an intensive care unit patient population using error grid analyses. Paired thermodilution and arterial blood pressure waveform measurements (N = 2141) from 222 patient records were extracted from the Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II database. Pulse contour analysis was performed by implementing a previously reported algorithm at calibration times of 1, 2, 8 and 24 h. Cardiac output estimation agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman and error grid analyses. Trending was assessed by concordance and a 4-Quadrant error grid analysis. Error between pulse contour and thermodilution increased with longer calibration times. Limits of agreement were -1.85 to 1.66 L/min for 1 h maximum calibration time compared to -2.70 to 2.41 L/min for 24 h. Error grid analysis resulted in 74.2 % of points bounded by 20 % error limits of thermodilution measurements for 1 h calibration time compared to 65 % for 24 h. 4-Quadrant error grid analysis showed <75 % of changes in pulse contour estimates to be within ±80 % of the change in the thermodilution measurement at any calibration time. Shorter calibration times improved the agreement of cardiac output pulse contour estimates with thermodilution. Use of minimally invasive pulse contour methods in intensive care monitoring could benefit from prospective studies evaluating calibration protocols. The applied pulse contour analysis method and thermodilution showed poor agreement to monitor changes in cardiac output.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiac output; Method comparison; Pulse contour analysis; Trend monitoring

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26285740     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-015-9749-9

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


  36 in total

1.  Reliability of a new algorithm for continuous cardiac output determination by pulse-contour analysis during hemodynamic instability.

Authors:  Oliver Gödje; Kerstin Höke; Alwin E Goetz; Thomas W Felbinger; Daniel A Reuter; Bruno Reichart; Reinhard Friedl; Andreas Hannekum; Ulrich J Pfeiffer
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 2.  A critical review of the ability of continuous cardiac output monitors to measure trends in cardiac output.

Authors:  Lester A Critchley; Anna Lee; Anthony M-H Ho
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2010-08-24       Impact factor: 5.108

3.  Continuous cardiac output in septic shock by simulating a model of the aortic input impedance: a comparison with bolus injection thermodilution.

Authors:  W T Jellema; K H Wesseling; A B Groeneveld; C P Stoutenbeek; L G Thijs; J J van Lieshout
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 7.892

4.  Thermodilution cardiac output--are three injections enough?

Authors:  L B Nilsson; J C Nilsson; L T Skovgaard; P G Berthelsen
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.105

5.  Evaluating clinical accuracy of systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose.

Authors:  W L Clarke; D Cox; L A Gonder-Frederick; W Carter; S L Pohl
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  1987 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 19.112

6.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 7.  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

8.  Nexfin noninvasive continuous hemodynamic monitoring: validation against continuous pulse contour and intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution derived cardiac output in critically ill patients.

Authors:  Koen Ameloot; Katrijn Van De Vijver; Ole Broch; Niels Van Regenmortel; Inneke De Laet; Karen Schoonheydt; Hilde Dits; Berthold Bein; Manu L N G Malbrain
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2013-11-11

9.  Noninvasive cardiac output and blood pressure monitoring cannot replace an invasive monitoring system in critically ill patients.

Authors:  John F Stover; Reto Stocker; Renato Lenherr; Thomas A Neff; Silvia R Cottini; Bernhard Zoller; Markus Béchir
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2009-10-12       Impact factor: 2.217

10.  The estimation of cardiac output by the Nexfin device is of poor reliability for tracking the effects of a fluid challenge.

Authors:  Xavier Monnet; Fabien Picard; Elsa Lidzborski; Malcie Mesnil; Jacques Duranteau; Christian Richard; Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2012-10-29       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2016 end of year summary: cardiovascular and hemodynamic monitoring.

Authors:  Bernd Saugel; Karim Bendjelid; Lester A Critchley; Steffen Rex; Thomas W L Scheeren
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-01-07       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  Effect of Pulse Indicator Continuous Cardiac Output Monitoring on Septic Shock Patients: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Bin Wang; Lijuan Cai; Bin Lin; Qiongxiao He; Xuejun Ding
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2022-04-16       Impact factor: 2.809

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.