Literature DB >> 28540614

A comparison of volume clamp method-based continuous noninvasive cardiac output (CNCO) measurement versus intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in postoperative cardiothoracic surgery patients.

Julia Y Wagner1, Annmarie Körner2, Leonie Schulte-Uentrop2, Mathias Kubik3,4, Hermann Reichenspurner3, Stefan Kluge4, Daniel A Reuter2, Bernd Saugel2.   

Abstract

The CNAP technology (CNSystems Medizintechnik AG, Graz, Austria) allows continuous noninvasive arterial pressure waveform recording based on the volume clamp method and estimation of cardiac output (CO) by pulse contour analysis. We compared CNAP-derived CO measurements (CNCO) with intermittent invasive CO measurements (pulmonary artery catheter; PAC-CO) in postoperative cardiothoracic surgery patients. In 51 intensive care unit patients after cardiothoracic surgery, we measured PAC-CO (criterion standard) and CNCO at three different time points. We conducted two separate comparative analyses: (1) CNCO auto-calibrated to biometric patient data (CNCObio) versus PAC-CO and (2) CNCO calibrated to the first simultaneously measured PAC-CO value (CNCOcal) versus PAC-CO. The agreement between the two methods was statistically assessed by Bland-Altman analysis and the percentage error. In a subgroup of patients, a passive leg raising maneuver was performed for clinical indications and we present the changes in PAC-CO and CNCO in four-quadrant plots (exclusion zone 0.5 L/min) in order to evaluate the trending ability of CNCO. The mean difference between CNCObio and PAC-CO was +0.5 L/min (standard deviation ± 1.3 L/min; 95% limits of agreement -1.9 to +3.0 L/min). The percentage error was 49%. The concordance rate was 100%. For CNCOcal, the mean difference was -0.3 L/min (±0.5 L/min; -1.2 to +0.7 L/min) with a percentage error of 19%. In this clinical study in cardiothoracic surgery patients, CNCOcal showed good agreement when compared with PAC-CO. For CNCObio, we observed a higher percentage error and good trending ability (concordance rate 100%).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiovascular dynamics; Critical care; Hemodynamic monitoring; Hemodynamics; Swan-Ganz

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28540614     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-017-0027-x

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


  39 in total

1.  A comparison of the Nexfin® and transcardiopulmonary thermodilution to estimate cardiac output during coronary artery surgery.

Authors:  O Broch; J Renner; M Gruenewald; P Meybohm; J Schöttler; A Caliebe; M Steinfath; M Malbrain; B Bein
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2012-02-11       Impact factor: 6.955

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.  Radial Artery Applanation Tonometry for Continuous Noninvasive Cardiac Output Measurement: A Comparison With Intermittent Pulmonary Artery Thermodilution in Patients After Cardiothoracic Surgery.

Authors:  Julia Y Wagner; Harun Sarwari; Gerhard Schön; Mathias Kubik; Stefan Kluge; Hermann Reichenspurner; Daniel A Reuter; Bernd Saugel
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 7.598

4.  Tracking Changes in Cardiac Output: Statistical Considerations on the 4-Quadrant Plot and the Polar Plot Methodology.

Authors:  Bernd Saugel; Oliver Grothe; Julia Y Wagner
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 5.108

Review 5.  Cardiac output monitoring: a contemporary assessment and review.

Authors:  Robert H Thiele; Karsten Bartels; Tong J Gan
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 7.598

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.  An autocalibrating algorithm for non-invasive cardiac output determination based on the analysis of an arterial pressure waveform recorded with radial artery applanation tonometry: a proof of concept pilot analysis.

Authors:  Bernd Saugel; Agnes S Meidert; Nicolas Langwieser; Julia Y Wagner; Florian Fassio; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Luisa M Prechtl; Wolfgang Huber; Roland M Schmid; Oliver Gödje
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 2.502

9.  Noninvasive continuous cardiac output by the Nexfin before and after preload-modifying maneuvers: a comparison with intermittent thermodilution cardiac output.

Authors:  Serban Ion Bubenek-Turconi; Mihaela Craciun; Ion Miclea; Azriel Perel
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 5.108

Review 10.  Pulmonary artery catheters for adult patients in intensive care.

Authors:  Sujanthy S Rajaram; Nayan K Desai; Ankur Kalra; Mithil Gajera; Susan K Cavanaugh; William Brampton; Duncan Young; Sheila Harvey; Kathy Rowan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28
View more
  6 in total

1.  Cardiovascular dynamics during peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal achalasia: a prospective observational study using non-invasive finger cuff-derived pulse wave analysis.

Authors:  Bernd Saugel; Christina Vokuhl; Hans O Pinnschmidt; Thomas Rösch; Martin Petzoldt; Benjamin Löser
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2020-06-05       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  Noninvasive pulse contour analysis for determination of cardiac output in patients with chronic heart failure.

Authors:  Sebastian Roth; Henrik Fox; Uwe Fuchs; Uwe Schulz; Angelika Costard-Jäckle; Jan F Gummert; Dieter Horstkotte; Olaf Oldenburg; Thomas Bitter
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 3.  Journal of clinical monitoring and computing end of year summary 2018: hemodynamic monitoring and management.

Authors:  Bernd Saugel; Moritz Flick; Karim Bendjelid; Lester A H Critchley; Simon T Vistisen; Thomas W L Scheeren
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 2.502

4.  Mechanisms contributing to hypotension after anesthetic induction with sufentanil, propofol, and rocuronium: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Bernd Saugel; Elisa-Johanna Bebert; Luisa Briesenick; Phillip Hoppe; Gillis Greiwe; Dongsheng Yang; Chao Ma; Edward J Mascha; Daniel I Sessler; Dorothea E Rogge
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 1.977

5.  Invasive and noninvasive cardiovascular monitoring options for cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Dominic P Recco; Nathalie Roy; Alexander J Gregory; Kevin W Lobdell
Journal:  JTCVS Open       Date:  2022-04-11

6.  Noninvasive evaluation of the hemodynamic status in patients after heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation.

Authors:  Sebastian Roth; Henrik Fox; René M'Pembele; Michiel Morshuis; Giovanna Lurati Buse; Markus W Hollmann; Ragnar Huhn; Thomas Bitter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-14       Impact factor: 3.752

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.