Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2020 / Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 4

Comparison the accuracy and trending ability of cardiac index measured by the fourthgeneration of FloTrac with the PiCCO device in septic shock patients

Pages
860–869
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The overall correlation coefficient between CIv and CIpwas 0.63 (P < 0.0001), and the concordance rate was 85.4%.Conclusion: The 4th generation of FloTrac has not acceptable agreement to assess CI; however, it has the ability to tracked changes ofCI, when compared with the transpulmonary thermodilution method by PiCCO.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/aim: FloTrac/Vigileo is a noncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis for cardiac index (CI) monitoring.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim ofour study was to compare the CI measured by the 4th generation of FloTrac with PiCCO in septic shock patients.Materials and methods: We simultaneously measured the CI using FloTrac (CIv) and compared it with the CI derived fromtranspulmonary thermodilution (CItd) as well as the pulse contour-derived CI using PiCCO (CIp).Results: Thirty-one septic shock patients were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall correlation coefficient between CIv and CIpwas 0.63 (P < 0.0001), and the concordance rate was 85.4%.Conclusion: The 4th generation of FloTrac has not acceptable agreement to assess CI; however, it has the ability to tracked changes ofCI, when compared with the transpulmonary thermodilution method by PiCCO.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background/aim: FloTrac/Vigileo is a noncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis for cardiac index (CI) monitoring. The aim ofour study was to compare the CI measured by the 4th generation of FloTrac with PiCCO in septic shock patients.Materials and methods: We simultaneously measured the CI using FloTrac (CIv) and compared it with the CI derived fromtranspulmonary thermodilution (CItd) as well as the pulse contour-derived CI using PiCCO (CIp).Results: Thirty-one septic shock patients were included. The CIv correlated with CItd (r = 0.62, P < 0.0001). The Bland-Altman analysisshowed a bias of 0.14, and the limits of agreement were –1.62–1.91 L/min/m2 with a percentage error of 47.4%. However, the concordancerate between CIv and CItd was 93.6%. The comparison of CIv with CIp (n = 352 paired measurements) revealed a bias of -0.16, and thelimits of agreement were –1.45–1.79 L/min/m2 with a percentage error of 44.8%. The overall correlation coefficient between CIv and CIpwas 0.63 (P < 0.0001), and the concordance rate was 85.4%.Conclusion: The 4th generation of FloTrac has not acceptable agreement to assess CI; however, it has the ability to tracked changes ofCI, when compared with the transpulmonary thermodilution method by PiCCO.

🔖

Cite This Article

KHWANNIMIT, B., JOMSURIYA, R. (2022). Comparison the accuracy and trending ability of cardiac index measured by the fourthgeneration of FloTrac with the PiCCO device in septic shock patients. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 4, 860–869. https://ajindex.com/articles/610133

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Saugel B, Vincent JL. Cardiac output monitoring: how to choose the optimal method for the individual patient. Current Opinion in Critical Care 2018
  2. 24 (3): 165-172. doi: 10.1097/ Mcc.0000000000000492 2. Harvey S, Harrison DA, Singer M, Ashcroft J, Jones CM et al. Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PACMan): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005
  3. 366 (9484): 472-477. 3. Peters SG, Afessa B, Decker PA, Schroeder DR, Offord KP et al. Increased risk associated with pulmonary artery catheterization in the medical intensive care unit. Journal of Critical Care 2003
  4. 18 (3): 166-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2003.08.006 4. Sander M, Spies CD, Grubitzsch H, Foer A, Muller M et al. Comparison of uncalibrated arterial waveform analysis in cardiac surgery patients with thermodilution cardiac output measurements. Critical Care 2006
  5. 10(6): R164. doi: 10.1186/ cc5103 5. Della Rocca G, Costa MG, Coccia C, Pompei L, Di Marco P et al. Cardiac output monitoring: aortic transpulmonary thermodilution and pulse contour analysis agree with standard thermodilution methods in patients undergoing lung transplantation. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2003
  6. 50 (7): 707-711. 6. Halvorsen PS, Espinoza A, Lundblad R, Cvancarova M, Hol PK et al. Agreement between PiCCO pulse contour analysis, pulmonal artery thermodilution and transthoracic thermodilution during off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2006
  7. 50 (9): 1050-1057. doi: 10.1111/j.1399- 6576.2006.01118.x 7. Felbinger TW, Reuter DA, Eltzschig HK, Bayerlein J, Goetz AE. Cardiac index measurements during rapid preload changes: a comparison of pulmonary artery thermodilution with arterial pulse contour analysis. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 2005
  8. 17 (4): 241-248. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2004.06.013 8. Hofer CK, Cecconi M, Marx G, della Rocca G. Minimally invasive haemodynamic monitoring. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 2009
  9. 26 (12): 996-1002. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283300d55 9. Button D, Weibel L, Reuthebuch O, Genoni M, Zollinger A et al. Clinical evaluation of the FloTrac/VigileoTM system and two established continuous cardiac output monitoring devices in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007
  10. 99 (3): 329-36. doi: 10.1093/bja/aem188 10. McGee WT, Horswell JL, Calderon J, Janvier G, Van Severen T et al. Validation of a continuous, arterial pressure-based cardiac output