Comparing Cardiac Output Measurement Methods
Author Information
Author(s): William T. McGee, Jeffrey L. Horswell, Joachim Calderon, Gerard Janvier, Tom Van Severen, Greet Van den Berghe, Lori Kozikowski
Primary Institution: Baystate Medical Center
Hypothesis
Are arterial pressure-based cardiac output measurements comparable to intermittent thermodilution measurements in critically ill patients?
Conclusion
Continuous measurement of cardiac output using either arterial pressure-based or continuous methods is comparable to intermittent thermodilution in critically ill patients.
Supporting Evidence
- APCO showed a bias of 0.20 l/min compared to ICO.
- CCO showed a bias of 0.66 l/min compared to ICO.
- In 96% of comparisons, APCO tracked changes in cardiac output in the same direction as ICO.
- The study included 84 patients, with 69 being surgical patients.
Takeaway
Doctors can measure how well the heart is pumping blood using a new method that is less invasive than traditional methods, and it works just as well.
Methodology
The study enrolled patients requiring cardiac output monitoring and compared measurements from arterial pressure-based, continuous, and intermittent methods.
Potential Biases
The study included a diverse patient population, which may limit the reliability of the arterial waveform analysis.
Limitations
The variability in the reference measure of intermittent thermodilution may affect the perceived reliability of the arterial pressure-based method.
Participant Demographics
Patients aged 24-84 years, with a mean age of 68; approximately two-thirds were male.
Statistical Information
Confidence Interval
± 1.28 l/min for APCO and ± 1.05 l/min for CCO compared to ICO.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website