CARDIAC OUTPUT IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS CAN BE ESTIMATED EASILY AND ACCURATELY USING THE MINUTE DISTANCE OBTAINED BY PULSED-WAVE DOPPLER.

ABSTRACT: Background: Cardiac output (CO) assessment is essential for management of patients with circulatory failure. Among the different techniques used for their assessment, pulsed-wave Doppler cardiac output (PWD-CO) has proven to be an accurate and useful tool. Despite this, assessment of PWD-CO could have some technical difficulties, especially in the measurement of left ventricular outflow tract diameter (LVOTd). The use of a parameter such as minute distance (MD) which avoids LVOTd in the PWD-CO formula could be a simple and useful way to assess the CO in critically ill patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation and agreement between PWD-CO and MD. Methods: A prospective and observational study was conducted over 2 years in a 30-bed intensive care unit (ICU). Adult patients who required CO monitoring were included. Clinical echocardiographic data were collected within the first 24 h and at least once more during the first week of ICU stay. PWD-CO was calculated using the average value of three LVOTd and left ventricular outflow tract velocity-time integral (LVOT-VTI) measurements, and heart rate. Minute distance was obtained from the product of LVOT-VTI × heart rate. Pulsed-wave Doppler cardiac output was correlated with MD using linear regression. Cardiac output was quantified from the MD using the equation defined by linear regression. Bland-Altman analysis was also used to evaluate the level of agreement between CO calculated from MD (MD-CO) and PWD-CO. The percentage error was calculated. Results: A total of 98 patients and 167 CO measurements were analyzed. Sixty-seven (68%) were male, the median age was 66 years (interquartile range [IQR], 53-75 years), and the median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 22 (IQR, 16-26). The most common cause of admission was shock in 81 patients (82.7%). Sixty-nine patients (70.4%) were mechanically ventilated, and 68 (70%) required vasoactive drugs. The median CO was 5.5 L/min (IQR, 4.8-6.6 L/min), and the median MD was 1,850 cm/min (IQR, 1,520-2,160 cm/min). There was a significant correlation between PWD-CO and MD-CO in the general population ( R2 = 0.7; P < 0.05). This correlation improved when left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was less than 60% ( R2 = 0.85, P < 0.05). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement between PWD-CO and MD-CO in the general population, the median bias was 0.02 L/min, the limits of agreement were -1.92 to +1.92 L/min. The agreement was better in patients with LVEF less than 60% with a median bias of 0.005 L/min and limits of agreement of -1.56 to 1.55 L/min. The percentage error was 17% in both cases. Conclusion: Measurement of MD in critically ill patients provides a simple and accurate estimate of CO, especially in patients with reduced or preserved LVEF. This would allow earlier cardiovascular assessment in patients with circulatory failure, which is of particular interest in difficult clinical or technical conditions.

Basic critical care echocardiography training of intensivists allows reproducible and reliable measurements of cardiac output.

BACKGROUND: Although pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) have been the reference standard for calculating cardiac output, echocardiographic estimation of cardiac output (CO) by cardiologists has shown high accuracy compared to PAC measurements. A few studies have assessed the accuracy of echocardiographic estimation of CO in critically ill patients by intensivists with basic training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of CO measurements by intensivists with basic training using pulsed-wave Doppler ultrasound vs. PACs in critically ill patients. METHODS: Critically ill patients who required hemodynamic monitoring with a PAC were eligible for the study. Three different intensivists with basic critical care echocardiography training obtained three measurements of CO on each patient. The maximum of three separate left-ventricular outflow tract diameter measurements and the mean of three LVOT velocity time integral measurements were used. The inter-observer reliability and correlation of CO measured by PACs vs. critical care echocardiography were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were included. Data were analyzed comparing the measurements of CO by PAC vs. echocardiography. The inter-observer reliability for measuring CO by echocardiography was good based on a coefficient of intraclass correlation of 0.6 (95% CI 0.48-0.86, p < 0.001). Bias and limits of agreement between the two techniques were acceptable (0.64 ± 1.18 L/min, 95% limits of agreement of - 1.73 to 3.01 L/min). In patients with CO < 6.5 L/min, the agreement between CO measured by PAC vs. echocardiography improved (0.13 ± 0.89 L/min; 95% limits of agreement of - 1.64 to 2.22 L/min). The mean percentage of error between the two methods was 17%. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care echocardiography performed at the bedside by intensivists with basic critical care echocardiography training is an accurate and reproducible technique to measure cardiac output in critically ill patients.