Assessment of interchangeability rate between 2 methods of measurements: An example with a cardiac output comparison study

The Bland–Altman (BA) and percentage error (PE) methods have been previously described to assess the agreement between 2 methods of medical or laboratory measurements. This type of approach raises several problems: the BA methodology constitutes a subjective approach to interchangeability, whereas the PE approach does not take into account the distribution of values over a range. We describe a new methodology that defines an interchangeability rate between 2 methods of measurement and cutoff values that determine the range of interchangeable values. We used a simulated data and a previously published data set to demonstrate the concept of the method. The interchangeability rate of 5 different cardiac output (CO) pulse contour techniques (Wesseling method, LiDCO, PiCCO, Hemac method, and Modelflow) was calculated, in comparison with the reference pulmonary artery thermodilution CO using our new method. In our example, Modelflow with a good interchangeability rate of 93% and a cutoff value of 4.8 L min(−1), was found to be interchangeable with the thermodilution method for >95% of measurements. Modelflow had a higher interchangeability rate compared to Hemac (93% vs 86%; P = .022) or other monitors (Wesseling cZ = 76%, LiDCO = 73%, and PiCCO = 62%; P < .0001). Simulated data and reanalysis of a data set comparing 5 CO monitors against thermodilution CO showed that, depending on the repeatability of the reference method, the interchangeability rate combined with a cutoff value could be used to define the range of values over which interchangeability remains acceptable.