Cargando…

Disagreement in cardiac output measurements between fourth-generation FloTrac and critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND: Cardiac output measurements may inform diagnosis and provide guidance of therapeutic interventions in patients with hemodynamic instability. The FloTrac™ algorithm uses uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to estimate cardiac output. Recently, a new version of the algorithm h...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kaufmann, Thomas, Clement, Ramon P., Hiemstra, Bart, Vos, Jaap Jan, Scheeren, Thomas W. L., Keus, Frederik, van der Horst, Iwan C. C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6460822/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31011425
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40560-019-0373-5
_version_ 1783410390093266944
author Kaufmann, Thomas
Clement, Ramon P.
Hiemstra, Bart
Vos, Jaap Jan
Scheeren, Thomas W. L.
Keus, Frederik
van der Horst, Iwan C. C.
author_facet Kaufmann, Thomas
Clement, Ramon P.
Hiemstra, Bart
Vos, Jaap Jan
Scheeren, Thomas W. L.
Keus, Frederik
van der Horst, Iwan C. C.
author_sort Kaufmann, Thomas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cardiac output measurements may inform diagnosis and provide guidance of therapeutic interventions in patients with hemodynamic instability. The FloTrac™ algorithm uses uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to estimate cardiac output. Recently, a new version of the algorithm has been developed. The aim was to assess the agreement between FloTrac™ and routinely performed cardiac output measurements obtained by critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary hospital from June 2016 to January 2017. Adult critically ill patients with circulatory shock were eligible for inclusion. Cardiac output was measured simultaneously using FloTrac™ with a fourth-generation algorithm (CO(AP)) and critical care ultrasonography (CO(CCUS)). The strength of linear correlation of both methods was determined by the Pearson coefficient. Bland-Altman plot and four-quadrant plot were used to track agreement and trending ability. RESULT: Eighty-nine paired cardiac output measurements were performed in 17 patients during their first 24 h of admittance. CO(AP) and CO(CCUS) had strong positive linear correlation (r(2) = 0.60, p < 0.001). Bias of CO(AP) and CO(CCUS) was 0.2 L min(−1) (95% CI − 0.2 to 0.6) with limits of agreement of − 3.6 L min(−1) (95% CI − 4.3 to − 2.9) to 4.0 L min(−1) (95% CI 3.3 to 4.7). The percentage error was 65.6% (95% CI 53.2 to 77.3). Concordance rate was 64.4%. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with circulatory shock, there was disagreement and clinically unacceptable trending ability between values of cardiac output obtained by uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis and critical care ultrasonography. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02912624, registered on September 23, 2016 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-019-0373-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6460822
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64608222019-04-22 Disagreement in cardiac output measurements between fourth-generation FloTrac and critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock: a prospective observational study Kaufmann, Thomas Clement, Ramon P. Hiemstra, Bart Vos, Jaap Jan Scheeren, Thomas W. L. Keus, Frederik van der Horst, Iwan C. C. J Intensive Care Research BACKGROUND: Cardiac output measurements may inform diagnosis and provide guidance of therapeutic interventions in patients with hemodynamic instability. The FloTrac™ algorithm uses uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to estimate cardiac output. Recently, a new version of the algorithm has been developed. The aim was to assess the agreement between FloTrac™ and routinely performed cardiac output measurements obtained by critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary hospital from June 2016 to January 2017. Adult critically ill patients with circulatory shock were eligible for inclusion. Cardiac output was measured simultaneously using FloTrac™ with a fourth-generation algorithm (CO(AP)) and critical care ultrasonography (CO(CCUS)). The strength of linear correlation of both methods was determined by the Pearson coefficient. Bland-Altman plot and four-quadrant plot were used to track agreement and trending ability. RESULT: Eighty-nine paired cardiac output measurements were performed in 17 patients during their first 24 h of admittance. CO(AP) and CO(CCUS) had strong positive linear correlation (r(2) = 0.60, p < 0.001). Bias of CO(AP) and CO(CCUS) was 0.2 L min(−1) (95% CI − 0.2 to 0.6) with limits of agreement of − 3.6 L min(−1) (95% CI − 4.3 to − 2.9) to 4.0 L min(−1) (95% CI 3.3 to 4.7). The percentage error was 65.6% (95% CI 53.2 to 77.3). Concordance rate was 64.4%. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with circulatory shock, there was disagreement and clinically unacceptable trending ability between values of cardiac output obtained by uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis and critical care ultrasonography. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02912624, registered on September 23, 2016 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-019-0373-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-04-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6460822/ /pubmed/31011425 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40560-019-0373-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Kaufmann, Thomas
Clement, Ramon P.
Hiemstra, Bart
Vos, Jaap Jan
Scheeren, Thomas W. L.
Keus, Frederik
van der Horst, Iwan C. C.
Disagreement in cardiac output measurements between fourth-generation FloTrac and critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock: a prospective observational study
title Disagreement in cardiac output measurements between fourth-generation FloTrac and critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock: a prospective observational study
title_full Disagreement in cardiac output measurements between fourth-generation FloTrac and critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock: a prospective observational study
title_fullStr Disagreement in cardiac output measurements between fourth-generation FloTrac and critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock: a prospective observational study
title_full_unstemmed Disagreement in cardiac output measurements between fourth-generation FloTrac and critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock: a prospective observational study
title_short Disagreement in cardiac output measurements between fourth-generation FloTrac and critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock: a prospective observational study
title_sort disagreement in cardiac output measurements between fourth-generation flotrac and critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock: a prospective observational study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6460822/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31011425
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40560-019-0373-5
work_keys_str_mv AT kaufmannthomas disagreementincardiacoutputmeasurementsbetweenfourthgenerationflotracandcriticalcareultrasonographyinpatientswithcirculatoryshockaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT clementramonp disagreementincardiacoutputmeasurementsbetweenfourthgenerationflotracandcriticalcareultrasonographyinpatientswithcirculatoryshockaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT hiemstrabart disagreementincardiacoutputmeasurementsbetweenfourthgenerationflotracandcriticalcareultrasonographyinpatientswithcirculatoryshockaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT vosjaapjan disagreementincardiacoutputmeasurementsbetweenfourthgenerationflotracandcriticalcareultrasonographyinpatientswithcirculatoryshockaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT scheerenthomaswl disagreementincardiacoutputmeasurementsbetweenfourthgenerationflotracandcriticalcareultrasonographyinpatientswithcirculatoryshockaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT keusfrederik disagreementincardiacoutputmeasurementsbetweenfourthgenerationflotracandcriticalcareultrasonographyinpatientswithcirculatoryshockaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT vanderhorstiwancc disagreementincardiacoutputmeasurementsbetweenfourthgenerationflotracandcriticalcareultrasonographyinpatientswithcirculatoryshockaprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT disagreementincardiacoutputmeasurementsbetweenfourthgenerationflotracandcriticalcareultrasonographyinpatientswithcirculatoryshockaprospectiveobservationalstudy