Cardiac Output Assessed by the Fourth-Generation Arterial Waveform Analysis System Is Unreliable in Liver Transplant Recipients

Comparison of invasive and non-invasive measurements of cardiac index and systemic vascular resistance in living-donor liver transplantation: a prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND

Based on the controversy surrounding pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) in surgical patients, we investigated the interchangeability of cardiac index (CI) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) measurements between ClearSight™ and PAC during living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

This prospective study included consecutively selected LDLT patients. ClearSight™-based CI and SVR measurements were compared with those from PAC at seven LDLT-stage time points. ClearSight™-based systolic (SAP), mean (MAP), and diastolic (DAP) arterial pressures were also compared with those from femoral arterial catheterization (FAC). For the comparison and analysis of ClearSight™ and the reference method, Bland-Altman analysis was used to analyze accuracy while polar and four-quadrant plots were used to analyze the trending ability.

RESULTS

From 27 patients, 189 pairs of ClearSight™ and reference values were analyzed. The CI and SVR performance errors (PEs) exhibited poor accuracy between the two methods (51.52 and 51.73%, respectively) in the Bland-Altman analysis. CI and SVR also exhibited unacceptable trending abilities in both the polar and four-quadrant plot analyses. SAP, MAP, and DAP PEs between the two methods displayed favorable accuracy (24.28, 21.18, and 26.26%, respectively). SAP and MAP exhibited acceptable trending ability in the four-quadrant plot between the two methods, but not in the polar plot analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

During LDLT, CI and SVR demonstrated poor interchangeability, while SAP and MAP exhibited acceptable interchangeability between ClearSight™ and FAC.

Accuracy of Cardiac Output Measured by Fourth-Generation Flotrac and Lidcorapid, and Their Characteristics Regarding Systemic Vascular Resistance in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

OBJECTIVES

The clinical use of less-invasive devices that calculate the cardiac output from arterial pressure waveform is increasing. The authors aimed to evaluate the accuracy and characteristics of the systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) of the cardiac index measured by 2 less-invasive devices, fourth-generation FloTrac (CI_FT) and LiDCOrapid (CI_LR), compared with the intermittent thermodilution technique, using a pulmonary artery catheter (CI_TD).

DESIGN

This was a prospective observational study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a single university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-nine adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Elective cardiac surgery was used as an intervention.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Hemodynamic parameters, CI_FT, CI_LR, and CI_TD, were measured after the induction of general anesthesia, at the start of cardiopulmonary bypass, after completion of weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass, 30 minutes after weaning, and at sternal closure (135 measurements in total). The CI_FT and CI_LR had moderate correlations with CI_TD (r = 0.62 and 0.58, respectively). Compared with CI_TD, CI_FT, and CI_LR had a bias of -0.73 and -0.61 L/min/m², limit of agreement of -2.14-to-0.68 L/min/m² and -2.42-to-1.20 L/min/m², and percentage error of 39.9% and 51.2%, respectively. Subgroup analysis for evaluating SVRI characteristics showed that the percentage errors of CI_FT and CI_LR were 33.9% and 54.5% in low SVRI (<1,200 dyne×s/cm⁵/m), 37.6% and 47.9% in moderate SVRI (1,200-1,800 dyne×s/cm⁵/m), 49.3% and 50.6% in high SVRI (>1,800 dyne·s/cm⁵/m²), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of CI_FT or CI_LR was not clinically acceptable for cardiac surgery. Fourth-generation FloTrac was unreliable in high SVRI. LiDCOrapid was inaccurate across a broad range of SVRI, and minimally affected by SVRI.

What is the optimal anesthetic monitoring regarding immediate and short-term outcomes after liver transplantation?-A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

Liver transplant centers vary in approach to intraoperative vascular accesses, monitoring of cardiac function and temperature management. Evidence is limited regarding impact of selected modalities on postoperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature and provide expert panel recommendations on optimal intraoperative arterial blood pressure (BP), central venous pressure (CVP), and vascular accesses, monitoring of cardiac function and intraoperative temperature management regarding immediate and short-term outcomes after orthotopic liver transplant (OLT).

METHODS

Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. Recommendations made for: (1) Vascular accesses, arterial BP and CVP monitoring, (2) cardiac function monitoring, and (3) Intraoperative temperature management (CRD42021239908).

RESULTS

Of 2619 articles screened 16 were included. Studies were small, retrospective, and observational. Vascular access studies demonstrated low rates of insertion complications. TEE studies demonstrated low rates of esophageal hemorrhage. One study found lower hospital-LOS and 30-day mortality in patients monitored with both PAC and TEE. Other monitoring studies were heterogenous in design and outcomes. Temperature studies showed increased blood transfusion and ventilation times in hypothermic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations were made for; routine arterial and CVP monitoring as a minimum standard of practice, consideration of discrepancy between peripheral and central arterial BP in patients with hemodynamic instability and high vasopressor requirements, and routine use of high flow cannulae while monitoring for extravasation and hematoma formation. Availability and expertise in PAC and/or TEE monitoring is strongly recommended particularly in hemodynamic instability, portopulmonary HT and/or cardiac dysfunction. TEE use is recommended as an acceptable risk in patients with treated esophageal varices and is an effective diagnostic tool for emergency cardiovascular collapse. Maintenance of intraoperative normothermia is strongly recommended.

Hemodynamic Instability During Liver Transplantation in Patients With End-stage Liver Disease: A Consensus Document from ILTS, LICAGE, and SATA

Hemodynamic instability (HDI) during liver transplantation (LT) can be difficult to manage and increases postoperative morbidity and mortality. In addition to surgical causes of HDI, patient- and graft-related factors are also important. Nitric oxide-mediated vasodilatation is a common denominator associated with end-stage liver disease related to HDI. Despite intense investigation, optimal management strategies remain elusive. In this consensus article, experts from the International Liver Transplantation Society, the Liver Intensive Care Group of Europe, and the Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia performed a rigorous review of the most current literature regarding the epidemiology, causes, and management of HDI during LT. Special attention has been paid to unique LT-associated conditions including the causes and management of vasoplegic syndrome, cardiomyopathies, LT-related arrhythmias, right and left ventricular dysfunction, and the specifics of medical and fluid management in end-stage liver disease as well as problems specifically related to portal circulation. When possible, management recommendations are made.

Four different methods of measuring cardiac index during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are high-risk extensive abdominal surgery. During high-risk surgery, less invasive methods for cardiac index (CI) measurement have been widely used in operating theater. We investigated the accuracy of CI derived from different methods (FroTrac, ProAQT, ClearSight, and arterial pressure waveform analysis [APWA], from PICCO) and compared them to transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) during CRS and HIPEC in the operative room and intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

Twenty-five patients scheduled for CRS-HIPEC were enrolled. During nine predefined time-points, simultaneous hemodynamic measurements were performed in the operating room and ICU. Absolute and relative changes of CI were analyzed using a Bland-Altman plot, four-quadrant plot, and interchangeability.

RESULTS

The mean bias was -0.1 L/min/m2 for ClearSight, ProAQT, and APWA and was -0.2 L/min/m2 for FloTrac compared with TPTD. All devices had large limits of agreement (LoA). The percentage of errors and interchangeabilities for ClearSight, FloTrac, ProAQT, and APWA were 50%, 50%, 54%, 36% and 36%, 47%, 40%, 72%, respectively. Trending capabilities expressed as concordance using clinically significant CI changes were -7º ± 39º, -19º ± 38º, -13º ± 41º, and -15º ± 39º. Interchangeability in trending showed low percentages of interchangeable and gray zone data pairs for all devices.

CONCLUSIONS

During CRS-HIPEC, ClearSight, FloTrac and ProAQT systems were not able to reliably measure CI compared to TPTD. Reproducibility of changes over time using concordance, angular bias, radial LoA, and interchangeability in trending of all devices was unsatisfactory.

Best practice & research clinical anaesthesiology: Advances in haemodynamic monitoring for the perioperative patient: Perioperative cardiac output monitoring

Less invasive or even completely non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring technologies have evolved during the last decades. Even established, invasive devices such as the pulmonary artery catheter and transpulmonary thermodilution have still an evidence-based place in the perioperative setting, albeit only in special patient populations. Accumulating evidence suggests to use continuous haemodynamic monitoring, especially flow-based variables such as stroke volume or cardiac output to prevent occult hypoperfusion and, consequently, decrease morbidity and mortality perioperatively. However, there is still a substantial gap between evidence provided by randomised trials and the implementation of haemodynamic monitoring in daily clinical routine. Given the fact that perioperative morbidity and mortality are higher than anticipated and anaesthesiologists are in charge to deal with this problem, the recent advances in minimally invasive and non-invasive monitoring technologies may facilitate more widespread use in the operating theatre, as in addition to costs, the degree of invasiveness of any monitoring tool determines the frequency of its application, at least perioperatively. This review covers the currently available invasive, non-invasive and minimally invasive techniques and devices and addresses their indications and limitations.

Non-invasive cardiac output measurement with electrical velocimetry in patients undergoing liver transplantation: comparison of an invasive method with pulmonary thermodilution

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and interchangeability between continuous cardiac output (CO) measured by electrical velocimetry (CO_Ev) and continuous cardiac output obtained using the pulmonary thermodilution method (CO_PAC) during living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHOD

Twenty-three patients were enrolled in this prospective observational study. CO was recorded by both two methods and compared at nine specific time points. The data were analyzed using correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman analysis for the percentage errors, and the concordance rate for trend analysis using a four-quadrant plot.

RESULTS

In total, 207 paired datasets were recorded during LDLT. CO data were in the range of 2.8-12.7 L/min measured by PAC and 3.4-14.9 L/min derived from the EV machine. The correction coefficient between CO_PAC and CO_Ev was 0.415 with p < 0.01. The 95% limitation agreement was - 5.9 to 3.4 L/min and the percentage error was 60%. The concordance rate was 56.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

The Aesculon™ monitor is not yet interchangeable with continuous thermodilution CO monitoring during LDLT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chang Gung Medical Foundation in Taiwan (registration number: 201600264B0 ).

Cardiac Output Monitoring by Pulse Contour Analysis, the Technical Basics of Less-Invasive Techniques

Routine use of cardiac output (CO) monitoring became available with the introduction of the pulmonary artery catheter into clinical practice. Since then, several systems have been developed that allow for a less-invasive CO monitoring. The so-called “non-calibrated pulse contour systems” (PCS) estimate CO based on pulse contour analysis of the arterial waveform, as determined by means of an arterial catheter without additional calibration. The transformation of the arterial waveform signal as a pressure measurement to a CO as a volume per time parameter requires a concise knowledge of the dynamic characteristics of the arterial vasculature. These characteristics cannot be measured non-invasively and must be estimated. Of the four commercially available systems, three use internal databases or nomograms based on patients’ demographic parameters and one uses a complex calculation to derive the necessary parameters from small oscillations of the arterial waveform that change with altered arterial dynamic characteristics. The operator must ensure that the arterial waveform is neither over- nor under-dampened. A fast-flush test of the catheter–transducer system allows for the evaluation of the dynamic response characteristics of the system and its dampening characteristics. Limitations to PCS must be acknowledged, i.e., in intra-aortic balloon-pump therapy or in states of low- or high-systemic vascular resistance where the accuracy is limited. Nevertheless, it has been shown that a perioperative algorithm-based use of PCS may reduce complications. When considering the method of operation and the limitations, the PCS are a helpful component in the armamentarium of the critical care physician.

Evaluation of the use of the fourth version FloTrac system in cardiac output measurement before and after cardiopulmonary bypass

The FloTrac system is a system for cardiac output (CO) measurement that is less invasive than the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC). The purposes of this study were to (1) compare the level of agreement and trending abilities of CO values measured using the fourth version of the FloTrac system (CCO-FloTrac) and PAC-originated continuous thermodilution (CCO-PAC) and (2) analyze the inadequate CO-discriminating ability of the FloTrac system before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Fifty patients were included. After exclusion, 32 patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB were analyzed. All patients were monitored with a PAC and radial artery catheter connected to the FloTrac system. CO was assessed at 10 timing points during the surgery. In the Bland-Altman analysis, the percentage errors (bias, the limits of agreement) of the CCO-FloTrac were 61.82% (0.16, - 2.15 to 2.47 L min) and 51.80% (0.48, - 1.97 to 2.94 L min) before and after CPB, respectively, compared with CCO-PAC. The concordance rates in the four-quadrant plot were 64.10 and 62.16% and the angular concordance rates (angular mean bias, the radial limits of agreement) in the polar-plot analysis were 30.00% (17.62°, - 70.69° to 105.93°) and 38.63% (- 10.04°, - 96.73° to 76.30°) before and after CPB, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for CCO-FloTrac was 0.56, 0.52, 0.52, and 0.72 for all, ≥ ± 5, ≥ ± 10, and ≥ ± 15% CO changes (ΔCO) of CCO-PAC before CPB, respectively, and 0.59, 0.55, 0.49, and 0.46 for all, ≥ ± 5, ≥ ± 10, and ≥ ± 15% ΔCO of CCO-PAC after CPB, respectively. When CO < 4 L/min was considered inadequate, the Cohen κ coefficient was 0.355 and 0.373 before and after CPB, respectively. The accuracy, trending ability, and inadequate CO-discriminating ability of the fourth version of the FloTrac system in CO monitoring are not statistically acceptable in cardiac surgery.