Adam J Milam1, Farhad Ghoddoussi2, Jon Lucaj3, Spurthy Narreddy3, Nakul Kumar4, Vennela Reddy3, Joffer Hakim3, Sandeep H Krishnan5. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI; Department of Anesthesiology, St. Joseph Mercy Oakland Hospital, Pontiac, MI. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI; Department of Anesthesiology, St. Joseph Mercy Oakland Hospital, Pontiac, MI. Electronic address: sakrishna@med.wayne.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the mutual interchangeability of 4 cardiac output measuring devices by comparing their accuracy, precision, and trending ability. DESIGN: A single-center prospective observational study. DESIGN: Nonuniversity teaching hospital, single center. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-four consecutive patients scheduled for elective, nonemergent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). INTERVENTIONS: The cardiac output was measured for each participant using 4 methods: intermittent thermodilution via pulmonary artery catheter (ITD-PAC), Endotracheal Cardiac Output Monitor (ECOM), FloTrac/Vigileo System (FLOTRAC), and 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3D-TEE). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measurements were performed simultaneously at 5 time points: presternotomy, poststernotomy, before cardiopulmonary bypass, after cardiopulmonary bypass, and after sternal closure. A series of statistical and comparison analyses including ANOVA, Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman plots, quadrant plots, and polar plots were performed, and inherent precision for each method and percent errors for mutual interchangeability were calculated. For the 6 two-by-two comparisons of the methods, the Pearson correlation coefficients (r), the percentage errors (% error), and concordance ratios (CR) were as follows: ECOM_versus_ITD-PAC (r = 0.611, % error = 53%, CR = 75%); FLOTRAC_versus_ITD-PAC (r = 0.676, % error = 49%, CR = 77%); 3D-TEE versus ITD-PAC (r = 0.538, % error = 64%, CR = 67%); FLOTRAC_versus_ECOM (r = 0.627, % error = 51%, CR = 75%); 3D-TEE_versus ECOM (r = 0.423, % error = 70%, CR = 60%), and 3D-TEE_versus_FLOTRAC (r = 0.602, % error = 59%, CR = 61%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the recommended statistical measures of interchangeability, ECOM, FLOTRAC, and 3D-TEE are not interchangeable with each other or to the reference standard invasive ITD-PAC method in patients undergoing nonemergent cardiac bypass surgery. Despite the negative result in this study and the majority of previous studies, these less-invasive methods of CO have continued to be used in the hemodynamic management of patients. Each device has its own distinct technical features and inherent limitations; it is clear that no single device can be used universally for all patients. Therefore, different methods or devices should be chosen based on individual patient conditions, including the degree of invasiveness, measurement performance, and the ability to provide real-time, continuous CO readings.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the mutual interchangeability of 4 cardiac output measuring devices by comparing their accuracy, precision, and trending ability. DESIGN: A single-center prospective observational study. DESIGN: Nonuniversity teaching hospital, single center. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-four consecutive patients scheduled for elective, nonemergent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). INTERVENTIONS: The cardiac output was measured for each participant using 4 methods: intermittent thermodilution via pulmonary artery catheter (ITD-PAC), Endotracheal Cardiac Output Monitor (ECOM), FloTrac/Vigileo System (FLOTRAC), and 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3D-TEE). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measurements were performed simultaneously at 5 time points: presternotomy, poststernotomy, before cardiopulmonary bypass, after cardiopulmonary bypass, and after sternal closure. A series of statistical and comparison analyses including ANOVA, Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman plots, quadrant plots, and polar plots were performed, and inherent precision for each method and percent errors for mutual interchangeability were calculated. For the 6 two-by-two comparisons of the methods, the Pearson correlation coefficients (r), the percentage errors (% error), and concordance ratios (CR) were as follows: ECOM_versus_ITD-PAC (r = 0.611, % error = 53%, CR = 75%); FLOTRAC_versus_ITD-PAC (r = 0.676, % error = 49%, CR = 77%); 3D-TEE versus ITD-PAC (r = 0.538, % error = 64%, CR = 67%); FLOTRAC_versus_ECOM (r = 0.627, % error = 51%, CR = 75%); 3D-TEE_versus ECOM (r = 0.423, % error = 70%, CR = 60%), and 3D-TEE_versus_FLOTRAC (r = 0.602, % error = 59%, CR = 61%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the recommended statistical measures of interchangeability, ECOM, FLOTRAC, and 3D-TEE are not interchangeable with each other or to the reference standard invasive ITD-PAC method in patients undergoing nonemergent cardiac bypass surgery. Despite the negative result in this study and the majority of previous studies, these less-invasive methods of CO have continued to be used in the hemodynamic management of patients. Each device has its own distinct technical features and inherent limitations; it is clear that no single device can be used universally for all patients. Therefore, different methods or devices should be chosen based on individual patient conditions, including the degree of invasiveness, measurement performance, and the ability to provide real-time, continuous CO readings.