Reliability of Bioreactance and Pulse-Power Analysis in Measuring Cardiac Index During Open Abdominal Aortic Surgery.

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.

Reliability of bioreactance and pulse power analysis in measuring cardiac index during cytoreductive abdominal surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).

PURPOSE: Various malignancies with peritoneal carcinomatosis are treated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The hemodynamic instability resulting from fluid balance alterations during the procedure necessitates reliable hemodynamic monitoring. The aim of the study was to compare the accuracy, precision and trending ability of two less invasive hemodynamic monitors, bioreactance-based Starling SV and pulse power device LiDCOrapid with bolus thermodilution technique with pulmonary artery catheter in the setting of cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC. METHODS: Thirty-one patients scheduled for cytoreductive surgery were recruited. Twenty-three of them proceeded to HIPEC and were included to the study. Altogether 439 and 430 intraoperative bolus thermodilution injections were compared to simultaneous cardiac index readings obtained with Starling SV and LiDCOrapid, respectively. Bland-Altman method, four-quadrant plots and error grids were used to assess the agreement of the devices. RESULTS: Comparing Starling SV with bolus thermodilution, the bias was acceptable (0.13 l min- 1 m- 2, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.20), but the limits of agreement were wide (- 1.55 to 1.71 l min- 1 m- 2) and the percentage error was high (60.0%). Comparing LiDCOrapid with bolus thermodilution, the bias was acceptable (- 0.26 l min- 1 m- 2, 95% CI - 0.34 to - 0.18), but the limits of agreement were wide (- 1.99 to 1.39 l min- 1 m- 2) and the percentage error was high (57.1%). Trending ability was inadequate with both devices. CONCLUSION: Starling SV and LiDCOrapid were not interchangeable with bolus thermodilution technique limiting their usefulness in the setting of cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC.

Reliability of Bioreactance and Pulse-Power Analysis in Measuring Cardiac Index in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery With Cardiopulmonary Bypass.

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.

Bioreactance and fourth-generation pulse contour methods in monitoring cardiac index during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.

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.