Evaluation of a new semi-continuous cardiac output system in the intensive care unit

Agreement between continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution for cardiac output measurement in perioperative and intensive care medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary artery thermodilution is the clinical reference method for cardiac output monitoring. Because both continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution are used in clinical practice it is important to know whether cardiac output measurements by the two methods are clinically interchangeable.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies comparing cardiac output measurements assessed using continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in adult surgical and critically ill patients. 54 studies with 1522 patients were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The heterogeneity across the studies was high. The overall random effects model-derived pooled estimate of the mean of the differences was 0.08 (95%-confidence interval 0.01 to 0.16) L/min with pooled 95%-limits of agreement of - 1.68 to 1.85 L/min and a pooled percentage error of 29.7 (95%-confidence interval 20.5 to 38.9)%.

CONCLUSION

The heterogeneity across clinical studies comparing continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in adult surgical and critically ill patients is high. The overall trueness/accuracy of continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution in comparison with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution is good (indicated by a pooled mean of the differences < 0.1 L/min). Pooled 95%-limits of agreement of - 1.68 to 1.85 L/min and a pooled percentage error of 29.7% suggest that continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution barely passes interchangeability criteria with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020159730.

Validation of continuous thermodilution cardiac output in patients implanted with a left ventricular assist device

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy of a continuous cardiac output (CCO) monitor against an independent, intravascular measurement of flow as can be performed in patients fitted with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Academic tertiary-care center.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients (n = 15) presenting for LVAD placement.

INTERVENTIONS

Consenting patients presenting for LVAD placement for end-stage cardiac failure were anesthetized, and a CCO pulmonary artery catheter was placed (OptiQ, CCO/SvO(2); Abbott Critical Care, North Chicago, IL). Patients were monitored with transesophageal echocardiography and excluded from analysis if aortic regurgitation was found. Cardiac output was determined using a Q-Vue, CCO/SvO(2) computer with digital readout (Abbott Critical Care, North Chicago, IL). The LVAD was placed in standard fashion during cardiopulmonary bypass. The Thoratec vented electric Heartmate (Thoratec Co, Pleasanton, CA) incorporates an LVAD flow console, which computes LVAD flow within +/- 5% (range, 1.8 to 10 L/min).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Cardiac output flow measurements were made from both systems at the following time points: 5 minutes and 30 minutes after protamine administration, at chest closure, and after skin closure. Mean cardiac output for each device did not differ at any time point. Regression analysis (Pearson's) showed acceptable correlation (r(2) = 0.79, p < 0.0001), whereas a bias of 529 mL with limits of agreement of 1,208 mL were shown for CCO measurement compared with LVAD flow.

CONCLUSION

The data indicate that the CCO system tends to overestimate cardiac output by approximately 500 mL/min when compared with LVAD flow. Nevertheless, this bias is within the range found by other less-invasive studies done to assess the accuracy of this system and further serves to confirm its relative accuracy.

Comparing methods of clinical measurement: reporting standards for bland and altman analysis

In this era of medical technology assessment and evidence-based medicine, evaluating new methods to measure physiologic variables is facilitated by standardization of reporting results. It has been proposed that assessing repeatability be followed by assessing agreement with an established technique. If the "limits of agreement" (mean bias +/- 2SD) are not clinically important, then one could use two measurements interchangeably. Generalizability to larger populations is facilitated by reporting confidence intervals. We identified 44 studies that compared methods of clinical measurement published during 1996 to 1998 in seven anesthesia journals. Although 42 of 44 (95.4%) used the limits of agreement methodology for analysis, several inadequacies and inconsistencies in reporting the results were noted. Limits of agreement were defined a priori in 7.1%, repeatability was evaluated in 21.4%, and relationship (pattern) between difference and average was evaluated in 7.1%. Only one of the articles reported confidence intervals. A computer macro for the Minitab statistical package (State College, PA) is described to facilitate reporting of Bland and Altman analysis with confidence intervals. We propose standardization of nomenclature in clinical measurement comparison studies.

IMPLICATIONS

A literature review of anesthesia journals revealed several inadequacies and inconsistencies in statistical reports of results of comparison studies with regard to interchangeability of measurement methods. We encourage journal editors to evaluate submissions on this subject carefully to ensure that their readers can draw valid conclusions about the value of new technologies.