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 (CIFT) and LiDCOrapid (CILR), compared with the intermittent thermodilution technique, using a pulmonary artery catheter (CITD). 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, CIFT, CILR, and CITD, 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 CIFT and CILR had moderate correlations with CITD (r = 0.62 and 0.58, respectively). Compared with CITD, CIFT, and CILR 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 CIFT and CILR 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 CIFT or CILR 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.

Current Commonly Used Dynamic Parameters and Monitoring Systems for Perioperative Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy: A Review.

Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) is usually recommended in patients undergoing major surgery and is essential in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols. This fluid regimen is usually guided by dynamic hemodynamic parameters and aims to optimize patients' cardiac output to maximize oxygen delivery to their vital organs. While many studies have shown that GDFT benefits patients perioperatively and can decrease postoperative complications, there is no consensus on which dynamic hemodynamic parameters to guide GDFT with. Furthermore, there are many commercialized hemodynamic monitoring systems to measure these dynamic hemodynamic parameters, and each has its pros and cons. This review will discuss and review the commonly used GDFT dynamic hemodynamic parameters and hemodynamic monitoring systems.

[Project to Improve FloTrac Cognition and Skill Accuracy in Nurses Working in the Intensive Care Unit].

BACKGROUND & PROBLEMS: FloTrac is used to monitor hemodynamics in patients. Insufficient awareness of and inexperience with this machine put patients at risk. PURPOSE: A project was developed to increase FloTrac cognitive accuracy from 57.6% to 85% and skill accuracy from 73.3% to 91% in ICU nurses. Also, FloTrac installation time was intended to be reduced to less than 8 minutes and 38 seconds. RESOLUTION: Create a pithy, easy-to-remember formula; make operation teaching videos, operation manuals, and reminder cards; arrange educational training; and monitor quality regularly. RESULTS: FloTrac cognitive accuracy increased from 57.6% to 90.4%; FloTrac skill accuracy increased from 73.3% to 99.7%; and installation time was shortened from 8 minutes and 38 seconds to 5 minutes and 42 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: After implementation of the project, nurses improved their professional knowledge and were better able to help doctors obtain hemodynamic data efficiently to provide patients with accurate and rapid treatment.

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.

Relationship between pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation with changes in cardiac index during hypotension in patients undergoing major spine surgeries in prone position - A prospective observational study.

Background and Aims: Dynamic indices such as pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) are better predictors of fluid responsiveness than static indices. There is a strong correlation between PPV and SVV in the prone position when assessed with the fluid challenge. However, this correlation has not been established during intraoperative hypotension. Our study aimed to assess the correlation between PPV and SVV during hypotension in the prone position and its relationship with cardiac index (CI). Material and Methods: Thirty patients aged 18-70 years of ASA class I-III, undergoing spine procedures in the prone position were recruited for this prospective observational study. Hemodynamic variables such as heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), PPV, SVV, and CI were measured at baseline (after induction of anesthesia and positioning in the prone position). This set of variables were collected at the time of hypotension (T-before) and after correction (T-after) with either fluids or vasopressors. HR and MAP are presented as median with inter quartile range and compared by Mann-Whitney U test. Reliability was measured by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Generalized estimating equations were performed to assess the change of CI with changes in PPV and SVV. Results: A statistically significant linear relationship between PPV and SVV was observed. The ICC between change in PPV and SVV during hypotension was 0.9143, and after the intervention was 0.9091 (P < 0.001). Regression of changes in PPV and SVV on changes in CI depicted the reciprocal change in CI which was not statistically significant. Conclusion: PPV is a reliable surrogate of SVV during intraoperative hypotension in the prone position.

Comparison of accuracy of two uncalibrated pulse contour cardiac output monitors in off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery patients using pulmonary artery catheter-thermodilution as a reference.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac output (CO) is a key measure of adequacy of organ and tissue perfusion, especially in critically ill or complex surgical patients. CO monitoring technology continues to evolve. Recently developed CO monitors rely on unique algorithms based on pulse contour analysis of an arterial blood pressure (ABP) waveform. The objective of this investigation was to compare the accuracy of two monitors using different methods of pulse contour analysis - the Retia Argos device and the Edwards Vigileo-FloTrac device - with pulmonary artery catheter (PAC)-thermodilution as a reference. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery formed the study cohort. A total of 572 triplets of CO measurements from each device - Argos, Vigileo-FloTrac (third generation), and thermodilution - were available before and after interventions (e.g., vasopressors, fluids, and inotropes). Bland-Altman analysis accounting for repeated measurements per subject and concordance analysis were applied to assess the accuracy of the CO values and intervention-induced CO changes of each pulse contour device against thermodilution. Cluster bootstrapping was employed to statistically compare the root-mean-squared-errors (RMSE = √(µ2 + σ2), where µ and σ are the Bland-Altman bias and precision errors) and concordance rates of the two devices. RESULTS: The RMSE (mean (95% confidence intervals)) for CO values was 1.16 (1.00-1.32) L/min for the Argos device and 1.54 (1.33-1.77) L/min for the Vigileo-FloTrac device; the concordance rate for intervention-induced CO changes was 87 (82-92)% for the Argos device and 72 (65-78)% for the Vigileo-FloTrac device; and the RMSE for the CO changes was 17 (15-19)% for the Argos device and 21 (19-23)% for the Vigileo-FloTrac device (p < 0.0167 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with CO measured by the PAC, the Argos device proved to be more accurate than the Vigileo-FloTrac device in CO trending and absolute CO measurement in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.

Comparing the Mutual Interchangeability of ECOM, FloTrac/Vigileo, 3D-TEE, and ITD-PAC Cardiac Output Measuring Systems in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the mutual interchangeability of 4 cardiac output measuring devices by comparing their accuracy, precision, and trending ability. DESIGN: A single-center prospective observational study. DESIGN: Nonuniversity teaching hospital, single center. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-four consecutive patients scheduled for elective, nonemergent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). INTERVENTIONS: The cardiac output was measured for each participant using 4 methods: intermittent thermodilution via pulmonary artery catheter (ITD-PAC), Endotracheal Cardiac Output Monitor (ECOM), FloTrac/Vigileo System (FLOTRAC), and 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3D-TEE). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measurements were performed simultaneously at 5 time points: presternotomy, poststernotomy, before cardiopulmonary bypass, after cardiopulmonary bypass, and after sternal closure. A series of statistical and comparison analyses including ANOVA, Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman plots, quadrant plots, and polar plots were performed, and inherent precision for each method and percent errors for mutual interchangeability were calculated. For the 6 two-by-two comparisons of the methods, the Pearson correlation coefficients (r), the percentage errors (% error), and concordance ratios (CR) were as follows: ECOM_versus_ITD-PAC (r = 0.611, % error = 53%, CR = 75%); FLOTRAC_versus_ITD-PAC (r = 0.676, % error = 49%, CR = 77%); 3D-TEE versus ITD-PAC (r = 0.538, % error = 64%, CR = 67%); FLOTRAC_versus_ECOM (r = 0.627, % error = 51%, CR = 75%); 3D-TEE_versus ECOM (r = 0.423, % error = 70%, CR = 60%), and 3D-TEE_versus_FLOTRAC (r = 0.602, % error = 59%, CR = 61%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the recommended statistical measures of interchangeability, ECOM, FLOTRAC, and 3D-TEE are not interchangeable with each other or to the reference standard invasive ITD-PAC method in patients undergoing nonemergent cardiac bypass surgery. Despite the negative result in this study and the majority of previous studies, these less-invasive methods of CO have continued to be used in the hemodynamic management of patients. Each device has its own distinct technical features and inherent limitations; it is clear that no single device can be used universally for all patients. Therefore, different methods or devices should be chosen based on individual patient conditions, including the degree of invasiveness, measurement performance, and the ability to provide real-time, continuous CO readings.

The association between arterial pulse waveform analysis device and in-hospital mortality in high-risk non-cardiac surgeries.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative goal-directed fluid therapy is used for haemodynamic optimization in high-risk surgeries. Cardiac output monitoring can be performed by a specialized pressure transducer for arterial pulse waveform analysis (S-APWA). No study has assessed whether real-world use of S-APWA is associated with post-operative outcomes; therefore, using a Japanese administrative claims database, we retrospectively investigated whether S-APWA use is associated with in-hospital mortality among patients undergoing high-risk surgery under general anaesthesia. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent high-risk surgery under general anaesthesia and arterial catheterization between 2014 and 2016 were divided into S-APWA and conventional arterial pressure transducer groups, then compared regarding baseline factors and outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was performed to compare in-hospital mortality. Subgroup analyses evaluated S-APWA efficacy and outcomes based on the type of surgery and patients' comorbidity. RESULTS: S-APWA was used in 6859 of 23 655 (29.0%) patients; the crude in-hospital mortality rate was 3.5%. Adjusted analysis showed no significant association between S-APWA use and in-hospital mortality rate (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.07; P = .25). S-APWA use was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing vascular surgery (aOR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49-0.94), and significantly higher in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing lower limb amputation (aOR = 2.63; 95% CI: 1.32-5.22). S-APWA use and in-hospital mortality were not significantly associated with other subgroups. CONCLUSION: S-APWA use was not associated with in-hospital mortality in the entire study population. However, S-APWA was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality among vascular surgery and increased in-hospital mortality among lower limb amputation.

Evaluation of the Fourth-Generation FloTrac/Vigileo System in Comparison With the Intermittent Bolus Thermodilution Method in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, precision, and trending ability of the fourth-generation FloTrac/Vigileo system (version 4.00; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) by comparing cardiac output derived from FloTrac/Vigileo system (COAP) with that measured by a pulmonary artery catheter (COTD), and to determine the effects of hemodynamic variables on the bias between COTD and COAP. DESIGN: A prospective study. SETTING: University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass. INTERVENTIONS: Including hemodynamic variables, COTD and COAP were measured simultaneously at the following 10 time points: after the induction of anesthesia, at the start of operation, after sternotomy, before and after the administration of heparin, before and after the administration of protamine, at the start of sternal closure, at the end of operation, and on arrival to intensive care unit. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In total, 280 pairs of datasets were obtained. Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of -0.41 L/min, a precision of 0.72 L/min, and limits of agreement of -1.85 and 1.03 L/min, with a percentage error of 37.1%. The concordance rate determined by 4-quadrant plot analysis and the polar concordance rate were 76% and 79%, respectively. The linear mixed-effect model revealed that the bias was influenced strongly by the difference in pulse pressure between the radial and femoral artery (p < 0.001), and the systemic vascular resistance index (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The fourth-generation FloTrac/Vigileo system still lacks accuracy and trending ability in cardiac surgery, and the discrepancy in cardiac output measurement depends on the peripheral vascular tone. Further improvement of this system is needed.

Utilization of arterial pulse waveform analysis during non-cardiac surgery in Japan: a retrospective observational study using a nationwide claims database.

Arterial pulse waveform analysis (APWA) is used for cardiac output monitoring. However, data on the frequency of and patient characteristics for specialized pressure transducer for APWA (S-APWA) use are lacking. We retrospectively identified 175,201 patients aged 18 years or older, who underwent non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia with an arterial catheter from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2016. We extracted data on patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical and anesthesia characteristics, and hospital characteristics. Among the full study cohort, 24,605 (14.0%) patients were monitored using S-APWA. Further, the use of S-APWA was higher in patients undergoing high-risk surgery than in those undergoing low-risk surgery [high vs low: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.95; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.76-2.15, moderate vs low: aOR 1.11; 95% CI 1.01-1.22] and those with more comorbidities than in those with less comorbidities (high vs low: aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.42-1.56, moderate vs low: aOR 1.25; 95% CI 1.20-1.31). S-APWA use was significantly associated with both surgery risk and patients' comorbidities. In conclusion, our study may provide a benchmark for future studies related to the appropriate use of S-APWA.

Pre-operative fluid bolus for improved haemodynamic stability during minor surgery: A prospectively randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Haemodynamic instability during the induction of anaesthesia and surgery is common and may be related to hypovolaemia caused by pre-operative fasting or chronic diuretic therapy. The aim of our prospective, controlled, randomized study was to test the hypothesis that a predefined fluid bolus given prior to general anaesthesia for minor surgery would increase haemodynamic stability during anaesthetic induction. METHODS: Two hundred and nineteen fairly healthy adult patients requiring minor surgery were enrolled. All received standard treatment, including a pulse contour analysing device for non-invasive measurement of cardiac index. Infusion therapy was started in all patients at induction. The intervention group (106 patients) was randomized to receive an additional fluid bolus of 8 mL/kg Ringer's acetate solution before the induction of anaesthesia. The primary endpoint was the incidence of haemodynamic instability, defined as a significant reduction of blood pressure or cardiac index during induction of anaesthesia. RESULTS: The interventional group had a lesser incidence of haemodynamic instability during induction (41.5% vs 56.6%, P = .025). This group also had higher cardiac index, stroke volume index, systolic and mean blood pressure and a greater left ventricular end-diastolic area. CONCLUSIONS: A fluid bolus prior to anaesthesia reduced the incidence of haemodynamic instability during induction of general anaesthesia. The total fluid volume was slightly greater in the intervention group compared to the control group (1370 ± 439 mL vs 1219 ± 483 mL, P = .007). We conclude that a defined fluid bolus can help stabilizing haemodynamics in patients undergoing general anaesthesia.

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.

Effective evaluation of arterial pulse waveform analysis by two-dimensional stroke volume variation-stroke volume index plots.

Arterial pulse waveform analysis (APWA) with a semi-invasive cardiac output monitoring device is popular in perioperative hemodynamic and fluid management. However, in APWA, evaluation of hemodynamic data is not well discussed. In this study, we analyzed how we visually interpret hemodynamic data, including stroke volume variation (SVV) and stroke volume (SV) derived from APWA. We performed arithmetic estimation of the SVV-SV relationship and applied measured values to this estimation. We then collected measured values in six anesthesia cases, including three liver transplantations and three other types of surgeries, to apply them to this SVV-SVI (stroke volume variation index) plot. Arithmetic analysis showed that the relationship between SVV and SV can be drawn as hyperbolic curves. Plotting SVV-SV values in the semi-logarithmic scale showed linear correlations, and the slopes of the linear regression lines theoretically represented average mean cardiac contractility. In clinical measurements in APWA, plotting SVV and SVI values in the linear scale and the semi-logarithmic scale showed the correlations represented by hyperbolic curves and linear regression lines. The plots approximately shifted on the rectangular hyperbolic curves, depending on blood loss and blood transfusion. Arithmetic estimation is close to real measurement of the SVV-SV interaction in hyperbolic curves. In APWA, using SVV as an index of preload and the cardiac index or SVI derived from arterial pressure-based cardiac output as an index of cardiac function, is likely to be appropriate for categorizing hemodynamic stages as a substitute for Forrester subsets.

Reliability of cardiac output measurements using LiDCOrapid™ and FloTrac/Vigileo™ across broad ranges of cardiac output values.

Knowing a patient's cardiac output (CO) could contribute to a safe, optimized hemodynamic control during surgery. Precise CO measurements can serve as a guide for resuscitation therapy, catecholamine use, differential diagnosis, and intervention during a hemodynamic crisis. Despite its invasiveness and intermittent nature, the thermodilution technique via a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) remains the clinical gold standard for CO measurements. LiDCOrapid™ (LiDCO, London, UK) and FloTrac/Vigileo™ (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) are less invasive continuous CO monitors that use arterial waveform analysis. Their calculations are based on arterial waveform characteristics and do not require calibration. Here, we evaluated LiDCOrapid™ and FloTrac/Vigileo™ during off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (OPCAB) and living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) surgery. This observational, single-center study included 21 patients (11 OPCAB and 10 LDLT). We performed simultaneous measurements of CO at fixed sampling points during surgery using both devices (LiDCOrapid™ version 1.04-b222 and FloTrac/Vigileo™ version 3.02). The thermodilution technique via a PAC was used to obtain the benchmark data. LiDCOrapid™ and FloTrac/Vigileo™ were used in an uncalibrated fashion. We analyzed the measured cardiac index using a Bland-Altman analysis (the method of variance estimates recovery), a polar plot method (half-moon method), a 4-quadrant plot and compared the widths of the limits of agreement (LOA) using an F test. One OPCAB patient was excluded because of the use of an intra-aortic balloon pumping during surgery, and 20 patients (10 OPCAB and 10 LDLT) were ultimately analyzed. We obtained 149 triplet measurements with a wide range of cardiac index. For the FloTrac/Vigileo™, the bias and percentage error were -0.44 L/min/m2 and 74.4 %. For the LiDCOrapid™, the bias and percentage error were -0.38 L/min/m2 and 53.5 %. The polar plot method showed an angular bias (FloTrac/Vigileo™ vs. LiDCOrapid™: 6.6° vs. 5.8°, respectively) and radial limits of agreement (-63.9 to 77.1 vs. -41.6 to 53.1). A 4-quadrant plot was used to obtain concordance rates (FloTrac/Vigileo™ vs. PAC and LiDCOrapid™ vs. PAC: 84.0 and 92.4 %, respectively). We could compare CO measurement devices across broad ranges of CO and SVR using LDLT and OPCAB surgical patients. An F test revealed no significant difference in the widths of the LoA for both devices when sample sizes capable of detecting a more than two-fold difference were used. We found that both devices tended to underestimate the calculated CIs when the CIs were relatively high. These proportional bias produced large percentage errors in the present study.

Comparison of an advanced minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring with a continuous invasive cardiac output monitoring during lung transplantation.

The aim of this study was to compare a continuous non-calibrated left heart cardiac index (CI) measurement by arterial waveform analysis (FloTrac(®)/Vigileo(®)) with a continuous calibrated right heart CI measurement by pulmonary artery thermodilution (CCOmbo-PAC(®)/Vigilance II(®)) for hemodynamic monitoring during lung transplantation. CI was measured simultaneously by both techniques in 13 consecutive lung transplants (n = 4 single-lung transplants, n = 9 sequential double-lung transplants) at distinct time points perioperatively. Linear regression analysis and Bland-Altman analysis with percentage error calculation were used for statistical comparison of CI measurements by both techniques. In this study the FloTrac(®) system underestimated the CI in comparison with the continuous pulmonary arterial thermodilution (p < 0.000). For all measurement pairs we calculated a bias of -0.55 l/min/m(2) with limits of agreement between -2.31 and 1.21 l/min/m(2) and a percentage error of 55 %. The overall correlations before clamping a branch oft the pulmonary artery (percentage error 41 %) and during the clamping periods of a branch oft the pulmonary artery (percentage error 66 %) failed to reached the required percentage error of less than 30 %. We found good agreement of both CI measurements techniques only during the measurement point "15 min after starting the second one-lung ventilation period" (percentage error 30 %). No agreement was found during all other measurement points. This pilot study shows for the first time that the CI of the FloTrac(®) system is not comparable with the continuous pulmonary-artery thermodilution during lung transplantation including the time periods without clamping a branch of the pulmonary artery. Arterial waveform and continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution are, therefore, not interchangeable during these complex operations.

Evaluation of the non-calibrated pulse contour cardiac output monitor FloTrac/Vigileo against thermodilution in standing horses.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the non-calibrated, minimally invasive cardiac output (CO) monitor FloTrac/Vigileo (FloTrac) against thermodilution (TD) CO in standing horses. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, experimental trial. ANIMALS: Nine adult horses weighing a median (range) of 535 (470-602) kg. METHODS: Catheters were placed in the right atrium, pulmonary artery and carotid artery under local anaesthesia. CO was measured 147 times by TD and FloTrac and indexed to body weight. Changes in CO were achieved with romifidine or xylazine and dobutamine constant rate infusions. Bland-Altman analysis, concordance and polar plot analysis were used to assess agreement and ability to track changes in CO. RESULTS: Mean ± standard deviation COTD of 48 ± 16 mL kg(-1) minute(-1) (range: 19-93 mL kg(-1) minute(-1) ) and mean COF loTrac of 9 ± 3 mL kg(-1) minute(-1) (range: 5-21 mL kg(-1) minute(-1) ) were measured. Low agreement with a large mean bias of 39 mL kg(-1) minute(-1) and wide limits of agreement of 8-70 mL kg(-1) minute(-1) were found. The percentage error of 108% and precision of TD of ± 18% resulted in an estimated precision of FloTrac of ± 106%. Comparison of changes in COF loTrac with changes in COTD gave a concordance rate of 52% in the four-quadrant plot, and a mean polar angle of -11° with radial limits of agreement of ± 61 ° in the polar plot. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and COF loTrac were positively correlated (r = 0.5, p < 0.0001). No correlation of MAP with COTD was observed. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The FloTrac system, originally designed for use in humans, neither measured absolute CO in standing horses accurately nor tracked relative changes in CO measured by TD correctly. The false dependence of COF loTrac on arterial blood pressure further discourages the use of this technique in horses.

Improved Performance of the Fourth-Generation FloTrac/Vigileo System for Tracking Cardiac Output Changes.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to compare cardiac output (CO) measured by the new fourth-generation FloTrac™/Vigileo™ system (Version 4.00) (COFVS) with that measured by a pulmonary artery catheter (COREF), and to investigate the ability of COFVS to track CO changes induced by increased peripheral resistance. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: University Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three patients undergoing cardiac surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Phenylephrine (100 µg) was administered. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Hemodynamic variables, including CO(REF) and CO(FVS), were measured before and after phenylephrine administration. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the discrepancy between CO(REF) and CO(FVS). Four-quadrant plot and polar-plot analyses were utilized to evaluate the trending ability of CO(FVS) against CO(REF) after phenylephrine boluses. One hundred thirty-six hemodynamic interventions were performed. The bias shown by the Bland-Altman analysis was-0.66 L/min, and the percentage error was 55.4%. The bias was significantly correlated with the systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) before phenylephrine administration (p<0.001, r(2) = 0.420). The concordance rate determined by four-quadrant plot analysis and the angular concordance rate calculated using polar-plot analysis were 87.0% and 83.0%, respectively. Additionally, this trending ability was not affected by SVRI state. CONCLUSIONS: The trending ability of the new fourth-generation FloTrac™/Vigileo™ system after increased vasomotor tone was greatly improved compared with previous versions; however, the discrepancy of the new system in CO measurement was not clinically acceptable, as in previous versions. For clinical application in critically ill patients, this vasomotor tone-dependent disagreement must be decreased.

Carotid Blood Flow as a Surrogate for Pulse Contour Analysis in Assessment of Fluid Responsiveness: A Prospective, Observational, Single-Centre Study (Contour Study).

Background and objectives The quest for an accurate and reliable non-invasive method of assessing cardiac output in critically ill patients is still ongoing. Carotid artery Doppler is a promising non-invasive, reproducible, and feasible bedside monitor. So we compared the change in cardiac output derived from arterial pressure waveforms (pulse contour analysis) with that from carotid artery Doppler-derived measurements, in post-major elective abdominal surgery patients. Materials and methods We conducted a prospective observational study in 30 adult post-major elective abdominal surgery patients admitted to the Gastroenterology and Liver Transplant intensive care unit postoperatively on mechanical ventilator support, who were found to be fluid responsive clinically on passive leg raise (PLR) test. Demographics and vasopressor support were recorded. Hemodynamic parameters including heart rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), cardiac output (CO) using arterial pulse contour analysis (Vigileo monitor/FloTrac® sensor; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, United States), and carotid blood flow (CBF) were recorded on the baseline, pre- and post- PLR, and post fluid bolus administration. Balanced salt solution at the rate of 6ml/kg over 20 minutes was given as a fluid bolus. Results Of the 30 patients who were included in the study, 16 patients (53.3%) were on vasopressor support, mean (± SD) age of the patients was 52.93 (± 8.13) years. There was a significant increase in the SBP (mmHg) pre- to post-PLR, that is, 112.2±15.57 and 118.7±14.96, respectively (p-value = 0.001). Also from pre-PLR to post-fluid bolus administration, the increase in SBP was significant, 112.2±15.57 and 121.93±13.96, respectively (p-value = 0.001). The change in cardiac output measured using Vigileo and CBF from pre- to post-PLR (7.66±1.45 to 9.14±1.76, p< 0.001 for Vigileo and 8.10±1.66 to 9.72±1.99, p<0.001 for CBF) and pre-PLR to post fluid administration (7.66±1.45 to 9.39±1.77, p< 0.001 for Vigileo and 8.10±1.66 to 10.31±2.26, p< 0.001 for CBF) were significant. There was a positive correlation between the change in cardiac output as measured from arterial pulse contour analysis technique (Vigileo) and that measured from CBF (r=0.884) pre- and post-PLR. There was a significant correlation between cardiac output measurements derived from two techniques, before PLR, after PLR, and after fluid expansion (p< 0.001 for each variable). The change in cardiac output before PLR and after fluid expansion was also correlated by both the techniques (correlation coefficient being, r=0.781). Conclusion There was a significant positive correlation of the CO (absolute and change) measurements pre- and post-interventions (that is, PLR and fluid bolus administration) as made by pulse contour analysis (Vigileo) and by CBF in post-surgical patients. Pulse wave Doppler of CBF could be used as a surrogate for invasive measures of CO measurement for prediction of fluid responsiveness in this subgroup. Further larger studies can be performed to validate the same.

Systemic vascular resistance has an impact on the reliability of the Vigileo-FloTrac system in measuring cardiac output and tracking cardiac output changes.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the ability of the Vigileo-FloTrac system to measure cardiac output (CO) and track changes in CO induced by increased vasomotor tone, under different states of systemic vascular resistance (SVR). METHODS: Forty patients undergoing cardiac surgery were enrolled. Haemodynamic variables including CO measured by the Vigileo-FloTrac system (version 3.02) (APCO), CO measured by a pulmonary artery catheter (ICO), and SVR index (SVRI) were recorded before (T1) and 2 min after (T2) phenylephrine administration (100 µg). Bland and Altman analysis was used to compare ICO and APCO at T1. We used four-quadrant plots and polar plots to compare the trending abilities between ICO and APCO. Patients were divided into three groups according to the SVRI value at T1, with low (<1200 dyn cm(-5) m(2)), normal (1200-2500 dyn cm(-5) m(2)), and high (>2500 dyn cm(-5) m(2)) SVRI states. RESULTS: A total of 155 paired data were collected. The adjusted percentage error was 46.3%, 26.4%, and 61.4%, and the concordance rate between ΔICO and ΔAPCO was 67.5%, 28.8%, and 7.7% in the low, normal, and high SVRI state, respectively. The polar plot analysis showed that the mean angular bias was -22.3°, -46.0°, and -3.51°, and the radial limits of agreement were 70°, 85°, and 87°, in the low, normal, and high SVRI state, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the reliability of the Vigileo-FloTrac system to measure CO and track changes in CO induced by phenylephrine administration was not clinically acceptable.

FloTrac/Vigileo(TM) (third generation) and MostCare(®)/PRAM versus echocardiography for cardiac output estimation in vascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the FloTrac/Vigileo(TM) cardiac output (COFT/V) and the MostCare(®)/PRAM cardiac output (COMC/P) versus transthoracic echocardiographic cardiac output estimation (reference method; CO(ECHO)). DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Single center, Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular Surgery/Intensive Care Unit. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing elective vascular surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Cardiac output measurement with two pulse contour methods: the FloTrac/Vigileo(TM) and the MostCare(®)/PRAM before (T1) and after (T2) fluid loading versus echocardiography (reference method). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six CO measurements were performed in 26 patients. The data showed poor agreement between CO(ECHO) and CO(FT/V): r(2) = 0.29 (T1) and 0.27 (T2); bias -0.37 (T1) and -0.40 (T2) L/min; limits of agreement from -3.10 to 2.42 (T1) and from -3.0 to 2.2 (T2) L/min. The percentage error was 51.7% (T1) and 49.3% (T2). Conversely, COMC/P resulted in agreement with echocardiography: r(2) = 0.76 (T1) and 0.80 (T2); bias -0.01 (T1) and -0.06 (T2) L/min; limits of agreement from -1.13 to 1.11 (T1) and from -0.90 to 0.80 (T2) L/min, with a PE of 22.4% (T1) and of 17.0% (T2). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing vascular surgery, the FloTrac/Vigileo(TM) did not demonstrate that it was a reliable system for CO monitoring when compared with echocardiography-derived CO. However, MostCare(®)/PRAM was shown to estimate CO with a good level of agreement with echocardiographic measures.