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: Cross-comparisons of trending accuracies of continuous cardiac-output measurements: pulse contour analysis, bioreactance, and pulmonary-artery catheter.
    Author: Lamia B, Kim HK, Severyn DA, Pinsky MR.
    Journal: J Clin Monit Comput; 2018 Feb; 32(1):33-43. PubMed ID: 28188408.
    Abstract:
    We compared the similarity of cardiac-output (CO) estimates between available bolus thermodilution pulmonary-artery catheters (PAC), arterial pulse-contour analysis (LiDCOplus™, FloTrac™ and PiCCOplus™), and bioreactance (NICOM™). Repetitive simultaneous estimates of CO obtained from the above devices were compared in 21 cardiac-surgery patients during the first 2 h post-surgery. Mean and absolute values for CO across the devices were compared by ANOVA, Bland-Altman, Pearson moment, and linear-regression analyses. Twenty-one simultaneous CO measurements were made before and after therapeutic interventions. Mean PAC CO (5.7 ± 1.5 L min) was similar to LiDCO™, FloTrac™, PiCCO™, and NICOM™ CO (6.0 ± 1.9, 5.9 ± 1.0, 5.7 ± 1.8, 5.3 ± 1.0 L min, respectively). Mean CO bias between each paired method was -0.10 (PAC-LiDCO), 0.18 (PAC-PiCCO), -0.40 (PAC-FloTrac), -0.71 (PAC-NICOM), 0.28 (LiDCO-PiCCO), 0.39 (LiDCO-FloTrac), -0.97 (NICOM-LiDCO), 0.61 (PiCCO-FloTrac), -1.0 (NICOM-FloTrac), -0.73 (NICOM-PiCCO) L/min, with limits of agreement (1.96 SD, ±95% CI) of ± 2.01, ±2.35, ±2.27, ±2.70, ±1.97, ±2.17, ±3.51, ±2.87, ±2.40, and ± 3.14 L min, respectively, and the percentage error for each of the paired devices was 35, 41, 40, 47, 33, 36, 59, 50, 42, and 55%, respectively. From Pearson moment analysis, dynamic changes in CO, estimated by each device, showed good cross-correlations. Although all devices studied recorded similar mean CO values, which dynamically changed in similar directions, they have markedly different bias and precision values relative to each other. Thus, results from prior studies that have used one device to estimate CO cannot be used to validate others devices.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]