Cargando…

Comparison of monitoring performance of Bioreactance vs. pulse contour during lung recruitment maneuvers

INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to test the hypothesis of equivalence in cardiac output (CO) and stroke volume (SV) monitoring capabilities of two devices: non invasive transthoracic bioreactance (NICOM), and a pulse contour analysis (PICCO PC) coupled to transpulmonary thermodilution (PICCO T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Squara, Pierre, Rotcajg, Dominique, Denjean, Dominique, Estagnasie, Philippe, Brusset, Alain
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2750178/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19638227
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc7981
_version_ 1782172220933537792
author Squara, Pierre
Rotcajg, Dominique
Denjean, Dominique
Estagnasie, Philippe
Brusset, Alain
author_facet Squara, Pierre
Rotcajg, Dominique
Denjean, Dominique
Estagnasie, Philippe
Brusset, Alain
author_sort Squara, Pierre
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to test the hypothesis of equivalence in cardiac output (CO) and stroke volume (SV) monitoring capabilities of two devices: non invasive transthoracic bioreactance (NICOM), and a pulse contour analysis (PICCO PC) coupled to transpulmonary thermodilution (PICCO TD). METHODS: We included consecutive patients of a single ICU following cardiac surgery. Continuous minute-by-minute hemodynamic variables obtained from NICOM and PICCO PC were recorded and compared in 20 patients at baseline, during a lung recruitment maneuver (20 cmH(2)O of PEEP) and following withdrawal of PEEP. PICCO TD measurements were also determined. We evaluated the accuracy of these two technologies at baseline using PICCO TD as reference and we estimated the precision by the fluctuation around the mean value (2SD/mean). Then, we assessed time response, amplitude response and reliability for detecting expected decreases when PEEP was applied. Type I and type II errors were analyzed. RESULTS: CO values (PICCO TD) ranged from 1.6 to 8.0 L.min(-1). At baseline, CO values were comparable for NICOM, PICCO PC and PICCO TD: 5.0 ± 1.2, 4.7 ± 1.4 and 4.6 ± 1.3 L.min.(-1), respectively (NS). Limits of agreements with PICCO TD were 1.52 L.min.(-1 )for NICOM and 1.77 L.min.(-1 )for PICCO PC, NS. The 95% statistical power gives an equivalence with a threshold of 0.52 L.min.(-1 )for NICOM vs. PICCO PC. The CO precision was 6 ± 3% and 6 ± 5% for NICOM and PICCO PC, respectively, NS. When PEEP was applied, CO was reduced by 33 ± 12%, 31 ± 14% and 32 ± 13%, for NICOM, PICCO PC and PICCO TD, respectively (NS). Time response was 3.2 ± 0.7 minute for NICOM vs. 2 ± 0.5 minute for PICCO PC (NS). SV results were comparable to those for CO. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited to 20 patients, this study has enough power to show comparable CO and SV monitoring capabilities of Bioreactance and pulse contour analysis calibrated by transpulmonary thermodilution.
format Text
id pubmed-2750178
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27501782009-09-25 Comparison of monitoring performance of Bioreactance vs. pulse contour during lung recruitment maneuvers Squara, Pierre Rotcajg, Dominique Denjean, Dominique Estagnasie, Philippe Brusset, Alain Crit Care Research INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to test the hypothesis of equivalence in cardiac output (CO) and stroke volume (SV) monitoring capabilities of two devices: non invasive transthoracic bioreactance (NICOM), and a pulse contour analysis (PICCO PC) coupled to transpulmonary thermodilution (PICCO TD). METHODS: We included consecutive patients of a single ICU following cardiac surgery. Continuous minute-by-minute hemodynamic variables obtained from NICOM and PICCO PC were recorded and compared in 20 patients at baseline, during a lung recruitment maneuver (20 cmH(2)O of PEEP) and following withdrawal of PEEP. PICCO TD measurements were also determined. We evaluated the accuracy of these two technologies at baseline using PICCO TD as reference and we estimated the precision by the fluctuation around the mean value (2SD/mean). Then, we assessed time response, amplitude response and reliability for detecting expected decreases when PEEP was applied. Type I and type II errors were analyzed. RESULTS: CO values (PICCO TD) ranged from 1.6 to 8.0 L.min(-1). At baseline, CO values were comparable for NICOM, PICCO PC and PICCO TD: 5.0 ± 1.2, 4.7 ± 1.4 and 4.6 ± 1.3 L.min.(-1), respectively (NS). Limits of agreements with PICCO TD were 1.52 L.min.(-1 )for NICOM and 1.77 L.min.(-1 )for PICCO PC, NS. The 95% statistical power gives an equivalence with a threshold of 0.52 L.min.(-1 )for NICOM vs. PICCO PC. The CO precision was 6 ± 3% and 6 ± 5% for NICOM and PICCO PC, respectively, NS. When PEEP was applied, CO was reduced by 33 ± 12%, 31 ± 14% and 32 ± 13%, for NICOM, PICCO PC and PICCO TD, respectively (NS). Time response was 3.2 ± 0.7 minute for NICOM vs. 2 ± 0.5 minute for PICCO PC (NS). SV results were comparable to those for CO. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited to 20 patients, this study has enough power to show comparable CO and SV monitoring capabilities of Bioreactance and pulse contour analysis calibrated by transpulmonary thermodilution. BioMed Central 2009 2009-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC2750178/ /pubmed/19638227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc7981 Text en Copyright ©2009 Squara et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Squara, Pierre
Rotcajg, Dominique
Denjean, Dominique
Estagnasie, Philippe
Brusset, Alain
Comparison of monitoring performance of Bioreactance vs. pulse contour during lung recruitment maneuvers
title Comparison of monitoring performance of Bioreactance vs. pulse contour during lung recruitment maneuvers
title_full Comparison of monitoring performance of Bioreactance vs. pulse contour during lung recruitment maneuvers
title_fullStr Comparison of monitoring performance of Bioreactance vs. pulse contour during lung recruitment maneuvers
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of monitoring performance of Bioreactance vs. pulse contour during lung recruitment maneuvers
title_short Comparison of monitoring performance of Bioreactance vs. pulse contour during lung recruitment maneuvers
title_sort comparison of monitoring performance of bioreactance vs. pulse contour during lung recruitment maneuvers
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2750178/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19638227
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc7981
work_keys_str_mv AT squarapierre comparisonofmonitoringperformanceofbioreactancevspulsecontourduringlungrecruitmentmaneuvers
AT rotcajgdominique comparisonofmonitoringperformanceofbioreactancevspulsecontourduringlungrecruitmentmaneuvers
AT denjeandominique comparisonofmonitoringperformanceofbioreactancevspulsecontourduringlungrecruitmentmaneuvers
AT estagnasiephilippe comparisonofmonitoringperformanceofbioreactancevspulsecontourduringlungrecruitmentmaneuvers
AT brussetalain comparisonofmonitoringperformanceofbioreactancevspulsecontourduringlungrecruitmentmaneuvers