These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of the ability of two continuous cardiac output monitors to measure trends in cardiac output: estimated continuous cardiac output measured by modified pulse wave transit time and an arterial pulse contour-based cardiac output device.
    Author: Terada T, Oiwa A, Maemura Y, Robert S, Kessoku S, Ochiai R.
    Journal: J Clin Monit Comput; 2016 Oct; 30(5):621-7. PubMed ID: 26370094.
    Abstract:
    Estimated continuous cardiac output (esCCO), a noninvasive technique for continuously measuring cardiac output (CO), is based on modified pulse wave transit time, which in turn is determined by pulse oximetry and electrocardiography. However, its trending ability has never been evaluated in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Therefore, this study examined esCCO's ability to detect the exact changes in CO, compared with currently available arterial waveform analysis methods, in patients undergoing kidney transplantation. CO was measured using an esCCO system and arterial pressure-based CO (APCO), and compared with a corresponding intermittent bolus thermodilution CO (ICO) method. Percentage error and statistical methods, including concordance analysis and polar plot analysis, were used to analyze results from 15 adult patients. The difference in the CO values between esCCO and ICO was -0.39 ± 1.15 L min(-1) (percentage error, 35.6 %). And corrected precision for repeated measures was 1.16 L min(-1) (percentage error for repeated measures, 36.0 %). A concordance analysis showed that the concordance rate was 93.1 %. The mean angular bias was -1.8° and the radial limits of agreement were ±37.6°. The difference between the APCO and ICO CO values was 0.04 ± 1.37 L min(-1) (percentage error, 42.4 %). And corrected precision for repeated measures was 1.37 L min(-1) (percentage error for repeated measures, 42.5 %). The concordance rate was 89.7 %, with a mean angular bias of -3.3° and radial limits of agreement of ±42.2°. This study demonstrated that the trending ability of the esCCO system is not clinically acceptable, as judged by polar plots analysis; however, its trending ability is clinically acceptable based on a concordance analysis, and is comparable with currently available arterial waveform analysis methods.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]