Correlation of Carotid Doppler Blood Flow With Invasive Cardiac Output Measurements in Cardiac Surgery Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid Doppler ultrasound has been a topic of recent interest, as it may be a promising noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring tool. In this study, the relation between carotid artery blood flow and invasive cardiac output (CO) was evaluated. DESIGN: A prospective, observational study. SETTING: A single-institution, tertiary referral hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen elective cardiac surgery patients. INTERVENTIONS: CO was measured by calibrated pulse contour analysis. Simultaneously, carotid artery pulsed-wave Doppler measurements were obtained in the operating room in three clinical settings: after induction of anesthesia (T1), after a passive leg raise maneuverer (T2), and at the end of surgery (T3). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Correlation and trending between carotid artery blood flow and invasive CO were evaluated. Furthermore, two Bland-Altman plots were constructed to evaluate the level of agreement between carotid artery-derived CO and invasive CO measurements. Carotid artery blood flow correlated moderately with invasive CO (ρ = 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.76, p < 0.05). Concordance between the percentage change of carotid artery blood flow and invasive CO from T1 to T3 was 72%. The level of agreement between carotid artery-derived CO and invasive CO was ±2.29; ±2.57 L/min, with a bias of 0.1; -0.54 L/min, and mean error of 50% and 48%, for the two Bland-Altman analyses, respectively. Intraexamination precision was acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: In cardiac surgery patients, carotid artery blood flow correlated moderately with invasive CO measurements. However, the trending ability of carotid artery blood flow was poor, and carotid artery-derived CO tended not to be interchangeable with invasive CO.

Clinical validation of a computerized algorithm to determine mean systemic filling pressure.

Mean systemic filling pressure (Pms) is a promising parameter in determining intravascular fluid status. Pms derived from venous return curves during inspiratory holds with incremental airway pressures (Pms-Insp) estimates Pms reliably but is labor-intensive. A computerized algorithm to calculate Pms (Pmsa) at the bedside has been proposed. In previous studies Pmsa and Pms-Insp correlated well but with considerable bias. This observational study was performed to validate Pmsa with Pms-Insp in cardiac surgery patients. Cardiac output, right atrial pressure and mean arterial pressure were prospectively recorded to calculate Pmsa using a bedside monitor. Pms-Insp was calculated offline after performing inspiratory holds. Intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC) and assessment of agreement were used to compare Pmsa with Pms-Insp. Bias, coefficient of variance (COV), precision and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated. Proportional bias was assessed with linear regression. A high degree of inter-method reliability was found between Pmsa and Pms-Insp (ICC 0.89; 95%CI 0.72-0.96, p = 0.01) in 18 patients. Pmsa and Pms-Insp differed not significantly (11.9 mmHg, IQR 9.8-13.4 vs. 12.7 mmHg, IQR 10.5-14.4, p = 0.38). Bias was -0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg (p = 0.277). COV was 4% with LOA -4.22 - 3.22 mmHg without proportional bias. Conversion coefficient Pmsa âž” Pms-Insp was 0.94. This assessment of agreement demonstrates that the measures Pms-Insp and the computerized Pmsa-algorithm are interchangeable (bias -0.502 ± 1.90 mmHg with conversion coefficient 0.94). The choice of Pmsa is straightforward, it is non-interventional and available continuously at the bedside in contrast to Pms-Insp which is interventional and calculated off-line. Further studies should be performed to determine the place of Pmsa in the circulatory management of critically ill patients. ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ; TRN NCT04202432, release date 16-12-2019; retrospectively registered).Clinical Trial Registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov , TRN: NCT04202432, initial release date 16-12-2019 (retrospectively registered).