BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to identify the accuracy of and agreement between two non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring techniques in the perioperative setting - thoracic electrical bioimpedance (TEB) and Edwards Lifesciences ClearSight system (CS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included ten patients. Parametric quantitative data were expressed as mean ± SD. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test the normality of the distributions. A linear regression model was used to measure the strength of the linear relationship between TEB and CS. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the mean difference, precision, and the limits of agreements (LOA). The Critchley and Critchley method was used to calculate the percentage error (PE), and if <30%, it was considered clinically acceptable. RESULTS: Ten patients were involved in our study. The mean cardiac output (CO) with TEB was 6.15 ± 1.14 L/min vs. 4.78 ± 1.40 L/min with CS (p < 0.01). The relationship was significant (n = 144; r 2 = 0.7; p < 0.01). The mean bias, LOA, and PE were 1.37 ± 1.01 L/min, 3.35 L/min and -0.61 L/min and 36.22%, respectively. The mean stroke volume index (SVI) with TEB was 48.64 ± 9.8 ml/beat/m2 vs. 37.12 ± 9.14 ml/beat/m2 with CS (p < 0.01). The relationship was significant (n = 144; r 2 = 0.65; p < 0.01). The mean bias, LOA, and PE were 11.52 ± 7.92 ml/beat/m2, 27.04 ml/beat/m2 and -4 ml/beat/m2 and 36.19%. CONCLUSIONS: The two methods of non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring are not compatible in the perioperative setting. However, the CS system has more advantages in terms of continuity and simplicity of monitoring, while measurements of TEB are interrupted by electrocautery.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to identify the accuracy of and agreement between two non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring techniques in the perioperative setting - thoracic electrical bioimpedance (TEB) and Edwards Lifesciences ClearSight system (CS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included ten patients. Parametric quantitative data were expressed as mean ± SD. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test the normality of the distributions. A linear regression model was used to measure the strength of the linear relationship between TEB and CS. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the mean difference, precision, and the limits of agreements (LOA). The Critchley and Critchley method was used to calculate the percentage error (PE), and if <30%, it was considered clinically acceptable. RESULTS: Ten patients were involved in our study. The mean cardiac output (CO) with TEB was 6.15 ± 1.14 L/min vs. 4.78 ± 1.40 L/min with CS (p < 0.01). The relationship was significant (n = 144; r 2 = 0.7; p < 0.01). The mean bias, LOA, and PE were 1.37 ± 1.01 L/min, 3.35 L/min and -0.61 L/min and 36.22%, respectively. The mean stroke volume index (SVI) with TEB was 48.64 ± 9.8 ml/beat/m2 vs. 37.12 ± 9.14 ml/beat/m2 with CS (p < 0.01). The relationship was significant (n = 144; r 2 = 0.65; p < 0.01). The mean bias, LOA, and PE were 11.52 ± 7.92 ml/beat/m2, 27.04 ml/beat/m2 and -4 ml/beat/m2 and 36.19%. CONCLUSIONS: The two methods of non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring are not compatible in the perioperative setting. However, the CS system has more advantages in terms of continuity and simplicity of monitoring, while measurements of TEB are interrupted by electrocautery.
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
Authors: Jean-Louis Vincent; Andrew Rhodes; Azriel Perel; Greg S Martin; Giorgio Della Rocca; Benoit Vallet; Michael R Pinsky; Christoph K Hofer; Jean-Louis Teboul; Willem-Pieter de Boode; Sabino Scolletta; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Daniel De Backer; Keith R Walley; Marco Maggiorini; Mervyn Singer Journal: Crit Care Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Monty G Mythen; Michael Swart; Nigel Acheson; Robin Crawford; Kerri Jones; Martin Kuper; John S McGrath; Alan Horgan Journal: Perioper Med (Lond) Date: 2012-06-27
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
Authors: Rodolfo Carvalho Pacagnella; João Paulo Souza; Jill Durocher; Pablo Perel; Jennifer Blum; Beverly Winikoff; Ahmet Metin Gülmezoglu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 3.240