OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of cardiac output measurement obtained by a new continuous thermodilution cardiac output (CCO) pulmonary artery catheter compared to intermittent thermodilution (TCO) and the direct Fick method. DESIGN: Prospective open trial. SETTING: University hospital, intensive care unit. PATIENTS: 23 patients (15 surgical, 8 non-surgical) were monitored with the Intellicath pulmonary catheter. Cardiac output was evaluated by the three methods every 4 to 6h as long as the pulmonary artery catheter was necessary (8-96 h). RESULTS: The correlation coefficient between CCO and TCO was 0.92, no systematic bias was observed, and the relative error increased from 13.9% for a cardiac output of 21/min to 23.7% for an output of 101/min. When comparing CCO and Fick, the correlation coefficient was 0.89, no bias was detected, and the relative error increased from 20.4% for outputs of 21/min to 27.2% for outputs of 101/min. CONCLUSIONS: CCO provides clinically acceptable measurements. At high cardiac outputs, the difference with other methods increases and the results must be cautiously interpreted.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of cardiac output measurement obtained by a new continuous thermodilution cardiac output (CCO) pulmonary artery catheter compared to intermittent thermodilution (TCO) and the direct Fick method. DESIGN: Prospective open trial. SETTING: University hospital, intensive care unit. PATIENTS: 23 patients (15 surgical, 8 non-surgical) were monitored with the Intellicath pulmonary catheter. Cardiac output was evaluated by the three methods every 4 to 6h as long as the pulmonary artery catheter was necessary (8-96 h). RESULTS: The correlation coefficient between CCO and TCO was 0.92, no systematic bias was observed, and the relative error increased from 13.9% for a cardiac output of 21/min to 23.7% for an output of 101/min. When comparing CCO and Fick, the correlation coefficient was 0.89, no bias was detected, and the relative error increased from 20.4% for outputs of 21/min to 27.2% for outputs of 101/min. CONCLUSIONS: CCO provides clinically acceptable measurements. At high cardiac outputs, the difference with other methods increases and the results must be cautiously interpreted.
Authors: Stéphane Thierry; Dominique Thebert; Elsa Brocas; Fereshte Razzaghi; Andry Van De Louw; Daniel Loisance; Jean Louis Teboul Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2003-09-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Giuseppe D'Ancona; Matteo Parrinello; Gianluca Santise; Domenico Biondo; Francesco Pirone; Sergio Sciacca; Marco Turrisi; Antonio Arcadipane; Michele Pilato Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-01-31 Impact factor: 17.440
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: P B W Cox; A M den Ouden; M Theunissen; L J Montenij; A G H Kessels; M D Lancé; W F F A Buhre; M A E Marcus Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 3.411