ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the accuracy, precision, and trending ability of noninvasive bioreactance-based Starling SV and the mini invasive pulse-power device LiDCOrapid as compared to thermodilution cardiac output (TDCO) as measured by pulmonary artery catheter when assessing cardiac index (CIx) in the setting of elective open abdominal aortic (AA) surgery. DESIGN: A prospective method-comparison study. SETTING: Oulu University Hospital, Finland. PARTICIPANTS: Forty patients undergoing elective open abdominal aortic surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Intraoperative CI measurements were obtained simultaneously with TDCO and the study monitors, resulting in 627 measurement pairs with Starling SV and 497 with LiDCOrapid. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Bland-Altman method was used to investigate the agreement among the devices, and four-quadrant plots with error grids were used to assess trending ability. The agreement between TDCO and Starling SV was associated with a bias of 0.18 L/min/m2 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.13 to 0.23), wide limits of agreement (LOA = -1.12 to 1.47 L/min/m2), and a percentage error (PE) of 63.7 (95% CI = 52.4-71.0). The agreement between TDCO and LiDCOrapid was associated with a bias of -0.15 L/min/m2 (95% CI = -0.21 to -0.09), wide LOA (-1.56 to 1.37), and a PE of 68.7 (95% CI = 54.9-79.6). The trending ability of neither device was sufficient. CONCLUSION: The CI measurements achieved with Starling SV and LiDCOrapid were not interchangeable with TDCO, and the ability to track changes in CI was poor. These results do not support the use of either study device in monitoring CI during open AA surgery.
Subject(s)
Aorta, Abdominal , Cardiac Output , Monitoring, Intraoperative , Thermodilution , Humans , Male , Female , Prospective Studies , Cardiac Output/physiology , Aged , Aorta, Abdominal/surgery , Reproducibility of Results , Monitoring, Intraoperative/methods , Monitoring, Intraoperative/standards , Middle Aged , Thermodilution/methods , Vascular Surgical Procedures/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Less-invasive and continuous cardiac output monitors recently have been developed to monitor patient hemodynamics. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy, precision, and trending ability of noninvasive bioreactance-based Starling SV and miniinvasive pulse-power device LiDCOrapid to bolus thermodilution technique with a pulmonary artery catheter (TDCO) when measuring cardiac index in the setting of cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). DESIGN: A prospective method-comparison study. SETTING: Oulu University Hospital, Finland. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. INTERVENTIONS: Cardiac index measurements were obtained simultaneously with TDCO intraoperatively and postoperatively, resulting in 498 measurements with Starling SV and 444 with LiDCOrapid. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors used the Bland-Altman method to investigate the agreement between the devices and four-quadrant plots with error grids to assess the trending ability. The agreement between TDCO and Starling SV was qualified with a bias of 0.43 L/min/m2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.50), wide limits of agreement (LOA, -1.07 to 1.94 L/min/m2), and a percentage error (PE) of 66.3%. The agreement between TDCO and LiDCOrapid was qualified, with a bias of 0.22 L/min/m2 (95% CI 0.16-0.27), wide LOA (-0.93 to 1.43), and a PE of 53.2%. With both devices, trending ability was insufficient. CONCLUSION: The reliability of bioreactance-based Starling SV and pulse-power analyzer LiDCOrapid was not interchangeable with TDCO, thus limiting their usefulness in cardiac surgery with CPB.
Subject(s)
Cardiac Surgical Procedures , Thermodilution , Cardiac Output , Cardiac Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Cardiopulmonary Bypass , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , Thermodilution/methodsABSTRACT
The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) is considered the gold standard for cardiac index monitoring. Recently new and less invasive methods to assess cardiac performance have been developed. The aim of our study was to assess the reliability of a non-invasive monitor utilizing bioreactance (Starling SV) and a non-calibrated mini-invasive pulse contour device (FloTrac/EV1000, fourth-generation software) compared to bolus thermodilution technique with PAC (TDCO) during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB). In this prospective study, 579 simultaneous intra- and postoperative cardiac index measurements obtained with Starling SV, FloTrac/EV1000 and TDCO were compared in 20 patients undergoing OPCAB. The agreement of data was investigated by Bland-Altman plots, while trending ability was assessed by four-quadrant plots with error grids. In comparison with TDCO, Starling SV was associated with a bias of 0.13 L min-1 m-2 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.18), wide limits of agreement (LOA, - 1.23 to 1.51 L min-1 m-2), a percentage error (PE) of 60.7%, and poor trending ability. In comparison with TDCO, FloTrac was associated with a bias of 0.01 L min-1 m-2 (95% CI - 0.05 to 0.06), wide LOA (- 1.27 to 1.29 L min-1 m-2), a PE of 56.8% and poor trending ability. Both Starling SV and fourth-generation FloTrac showed acceptable mean bias but imprecision due to wide LOA and high PE, and poor trending ability. These findings indicate limited reliability in monitoring cardiac index in patients undergoing OPCAB.
