Cargando…

Continuous Estimation of Cardiac Output in Critical Care: A Noninvasive Method Based on Pulse Wave Transit Time Compared with Transpulmonary Thermodilution

PURPOSE: Estimation of cardiac output (CO) and evaluation of change in CO as a result of therapeutic interventions are essential in critical care medicine. Whether noninvasive tools estimating CO, such as continuous cardiac output (esCCOTM) methods, are sufficiently accurate and precise to guide the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ehlers, Ulrike, Erlebach, Rolf, Brandi, Giovanna, Stretti, Federica, Valek, Richard, Klinzing, Stephanie, Schuepbach, Reto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7387954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32765907
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8956372
_version_ 1783564222519574528
author Ehlers, Ulrike
Erlebach, Rolf
Brandi, Giovanna
Stretti, Federica
Valek, Richard
Klinzing, Stephanie
Schuepbach, Reto
author_facet Ehlers, Ulrike
Erlebach, Rolf
Brandi, Giovanna
Stretti, Federica
Valek, Richard
Klinzing, Stephanie
Schuepbach, Reto
author_sort Ehlers, Ulrike
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Estimation of cardiac output (CO) and evaluation of change in CO as a result of therapeutic interventions are essential in critical care medicine. Whether noninvasive tools estimating CO, such as continuous cardiac output (esCCOTM) methods, are sufficiently accurate and precise to guide therapy needs further evaluation. We compared esCCOTM with an established method, namely, transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD). Patients and Methods. In a single center mixed ICU, esCCOTM was compared with the TPTD method in 38 patients. The primary endpoint was accuracy and precision. The cardiac output was assessed by two investigators at baseline and after eight hours. RESULTS: In 38 critically ill patients, the two methods correlated significantly (r = 0.742). The Bland–Altman analysis showed a bias of 1.6 l/min with limits of agreement of −1.76 l/min and +4.98 l/min. The percentage error for CO(esCCO) was 47%. The correlation of trends in cardiac output after eight hours was significant (r = 0.442), with a concordance of 74%. The performance of CO(esCCO) could not be linked to the patient's condition. CONCLUSION: The accuracy and precision of the esCCOTM method were not clinically acceptable for our critical patients. EsCCOTM also failed to reliably detect changes in cardiac output.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7387954
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73879542020-08-05 Continuous Estimation of Cardiac Output in Critical Care: A Noninvasive Method Based on Pulse Wave Transit Time Compared with Transpulmonary Thermodilution Ehlers, Ulrike Erlebach, Rolf Brandi, Giovanna Stretti, Federica Valek, Richard Klinzing, Stephanie Schuepbach, Reto Crit Care Res Pract Research Article PURPOSE: Estimation of cardiac output (CO) and evaluation of change in CO as a result of therapeutic interventions are essential in critical care medicine. Whether noninvasive tools estimating CO, such as continuous cardiac output (esCCOTM) methods, are sufficiently accurate and precise to guide therapy needs further evaluation. We compared esCCOTM with an established method, namely, transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD). Patients and Methods. In a single center mixed ICU, esCCOTM was compared with the TPTD method in 38 patients. The primary endpoint was accuracy and precision. The cardiac output was assessed by two investigators at baseline and after eight hours. RESULTS: In 38 critically ill patients, the two methods correlated significantly (r = 0.742). The Bland–Altman analysis showed a bias of 1.6 l/min with limits of agreement of −1.76 l/min and +4.98 l/min. The percentage error for CO(esCCO) was 47%. The correlation of trends in cardiac output after eight hours was significant (r = 0.442), with a concordance of 74%. The performance of CO(esCCO) could not be linked to the patient's condition. CONCLUSION: The accuracy and precision of the esCCOTM method were not clinically acceptable for our critical patients. EsCCOTM also failed to reliably detect changes in cardiac output. Hindawi 2020-07-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7387954/ /pubmed/32765907 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8956372 Text en Copyright © 2020 Ulrike Ehlers et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ehlers, Ulrike
Erlebach, Rolf
Brandi, Giovanna
Stretti, Federica
Valek, Richard
Klinzing, Stephanie
Schuepbach, Reto
Continuous Estimation of Cardiac Output in Critical Care: A Noninvasive Method Based on Pulse Wave Transit Time Compared with Transpulmonary Thermodilution
title Continuous Estimation of Cardiac Output in Critical Care: A Noninvasive Method Based on Pulse Wave Transit Time Compared with Transpulmonary Thermodilution
title_full Continuous Estimation of Cardiac Output in Critical Care: A Noninvasive Method Based on Pulse Wave Transit Time Compared with Transpulmonary Thermodilution
title_fullStr Continuous Estimation of Cardiac Output in Critical Care: A Noninvasive Method Based on Pulse Wave Transit Time Compared with Transpulmonary Thermodilution
title_full_unstemmed Continuous Estimation of Cardiac Output in Critical Care: A Noninvasive Method Based on Pulse Wave Transit Time Compared with Transpulmonary Thermodilution
title_short Continuous Estimation of Cardiac Output in Critical Care: A Noninvasive Method Based on Pulse Wave Transit Time Compared with Transpulmonary Thermodilution
title_sort continuous estimation of cardiac output in critical care: a noninvasive method based on pulse wave transit time compared with transpulmonary thermodilution
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7387954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32765907
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8956372
work_keys_str_mv AT ehlersulrike continuousestimationofcardiacoutputincriticalcareanoninvasivemethodbasedonpulsewavetransittimecomparedwithtranspulmonarythermodilution
AT erlebachrolf continuousestimationofcardiacoutputincriticalcareanoninvasivemethodbasedonpulsewavetransittimecomparedwithtranspulmonarythermodilution
AT brandigiovanna continuousestimationofcardiacoutputincriticalcareanoninvasivemethodbasedonpulsewavetransittimecomparedwithtranspulmonarythermodilution
AT strettifederica continuousestimationofcardiacoutputincriticalcareanoninvasivemethodbasedonpulsewavetransittimecomparedwithtranspulmonarythermodilution
AT valekrichard continuousestimationofcardiacoutputincriticalcareanoninvasivemethodbasedonpulsewavetransittimecomparedwithtranspulmonarythermodilution
AT klinzingstephanie continuousestimationofcardiacoutputincriticalcareanoninvasivemethodbasedonpulsewavetransittimecomparedwithtranspulmonarythermodilution
AT schuepbachreto continuousestimationofcardiacoutputincriticalcareanoninvasivemethodbasedonpulsewavetransittimecomparedwithtranspulmonarythermodilution