Comparison of the ability of two continuous cardiac output monitors to detect stroke volume index: Estimated continuous cardiac output estimated by modified pulse wave transit time and measured by an arterial pulse contour-based cardiac output device

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Takashi Terada ◽  
Ryoichi Ochiai
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Output ◽  
Pulse Wave ◽  
Stroke Volume Index ◽  
Continuous Cardiac Output ◽  
Volume Index ◽  
Percentage Error ◽  
Radial Limits ◽  
Pulse Wave Transit Time ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference

BACKGROUND: Estimated continuous cardiac output (esCCO), a non-invasive technique for continuously measuring cardiac output (CO), is based on modified pulse wave transit time, which is determined by pulse oximetry and electrocardiography. OBJECTIVE: We examined the ability of esCCO to detect stroke volume index (SVI) and changes in SVI compared with currently available arterial waveform analysis methods. METHODS: We retrospectively reanalysed 15 of the cases from our previous study on esCCO measurement. SVI was calculated using an esCCO system, measured using the arterial pressure-based CO (APCO) method, and compared with a corresponding intermittent bolus thermodilution CO (ICO) method. Percentage error measurement and statistical methods, including concordance analysis and polar plot analysis, were performed. RESULTS: The difference in the SVI values between esCCO and ICO was -3.0 ± 8.8 ml (percentage error, 33.5%). The mean angular bias was 0.8 and the radial limits of agreement were ± 27.3. The difference in the SVI values between APCO and ICO was 0.9 ± 11.2 ml (percentage error, 42.6%). The mean angular bias was -6.8 and the radial limits of agreement were ± 44.1. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the accuracy, precision, and dynamic trend of esCCO are better than those of APCO.

Multicenter Study Verifying a Method of Noninvasive Continuous Cardiac Output Measurement Using Pulse Wave Transit Time

2012 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takashige Yamada ◽  
Masato Tsutsui ◽  
Yoshihiro Sugo ◽  
Tetsufumi Sato ◽  
Toshimasa Akazawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Output ◽  
Transit Time ◽  
Multicenter Study ◽  
Pulse Wave ◽  
Cardiac Output Measurement ◽  
Continuous Cardiac Output ◽  
Output Measurement ◽  
Pulse Wave Transit Time

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Ulrike Ehlers ◽  
Rolf Erlebach ◽  
Giovanna Brandi ◽  
Federica Stretti ◽  
Richard Valek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Output ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Transpulmonary Thermodilution ◽  
Pulse Wave ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Percentage Error ◽  
Accuracy And Precision ◽  
Pulse Wave Transit Time ◽  
Critical Patients ◽  
Continuous Estimation

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 COesCCO 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 COesCCO 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.

scholarly journals Comparison of Derived Central Aortic Pressure vs Cuff Peripheral Pressure

2017 ◽  
Vol 02 (01) ◽  
pp. 020-025
Author(s):  
K. Krishna ◽  
M. Kiran ◽  
Indrani Garre
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Output ◽  
Pulse Wave Velocity ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Pulse Wave ◽  
Systolic Pressure ◽  
Aortic Pressure ◽  
Central Aortic Pressure ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference

AbstractBackground: Emerging evidence favours Central aortic pressure as a better correlate of cardiovascular events than peripheral BP recorded with sphygmomanometer. Noninvasive devices to calculate the derived central aortic pressures are available now. We want to see the difference of BP between derived central BP vs manual recorded BP and to see whether these BP values are consistent among different sexes and age groups.Materials and methods: In the present study 63 consecutive patients both male and female who attended the cardiology outpatient department were studied. In all these patients blood pressure was recorded both manually by sphygmomanometer and by Mobil-O-Graph® Pulse Wave Analyser (ARC Solver). The Mobil-O-Graph ® system works on the oscillometric recording of pulse waves at the brachial artery site. We recorded the BP in sitting posture. We compared the derived central, manual and device measured BP, cardiac output, and pulse wave velocity between both genders.Results: Among the study population (63 patients) 20 were females and 43 were males with mean age of 58.92±10.9 yrs. The mean systolic and diastolic manually recorded peripheral BP was 127.25 ± 19.89 and 79.25 ± 8.58 mm of Hg respectively, whereas the mean peripheral SBP and DBP recorded by the device was 129.40 ± 21.21 and 81.56 ± 12.83 mm of Hg respectively (comparable p=0.6, 0.2). The mean central aortic SBP & DBP recorded by the device was 117.37 ± 19.17 and 81.67 ± 13.04 mm of Hg with the mean pulse wave velocity of 8.392 ± 1.741 m/sec. There was a statistically significant difference in the central aortic SBP and manual SBP (p=0.005), whereas the difference in DBP was not statistically significant (p=0.2). There is no statistically significant difference in the central and peripheral SBP and DBP recorded by the device among males and females. The device derived parameters including cardiac output, pulse wave velocity also did not show significant difference in both sexes.Conclusion: Derived central aortic systolic pressure recorded by the device is lower than the manually recorded pressure whereas there was no difference in diastolic BP. There is no difference in these BP recordings between the genders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document