Disagreement in cardiac output measurements between fourth-generation FloTrac and critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock: a prospective observational study.
Cardiac output
Critical care ultrasonography
Critically ill
Intensive care
Monitoring
Pulse contour analysis
Shock
Journal
Journal of intensive care
ISSN: 2052-0492
Titre abrégé: J Intensive Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101627304
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
17
01
2019
accepted:
14
03
2019
entrez:
24
4
2019
pubmed:
24
4
2019
medline:
24
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cardiac output measurements may inform diagnosis and provide guidance of therapeutic interventions in patients with hemodynamic instability. The FloTrac™ algorithm uses uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to estimate cardiac output. Recently, a new version of the algorithm has been developed. The aim was to assess the agreement between FloTrac™ and routinely performed cardiac output measurements obtained by critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock. A prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary hospital from June 2016 to January 2017. Adult critically ill patients with circulatory shock were eligible for inclusion. Cardiac output was measured simultaneously using FloTrac™ with a fourth-generation algorithm (CO Eighty-nine paired cardiac output measurements were performed in 17 patients during their first 24 h of admittance. CO In critically ill patients with circulatory shock, there was disagreement and clinically unacceptable trending ability between values of cardiac output obtained by uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis and critical care ultrasonography. Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02912624, registered on September 23, 2016.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cardiac output measurements may inform diagnosis and provide guidance of therapeutic interventions in patients with hemodynamic instability. The FloTrac™ algorithm uses uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to estimate cardiac output. Recently, a new version of the algorithm has been developed. The aim was to assess the agreement between FloTrac™ and routinely performed cardiac output measurements obtained by critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock.
METHODS
METHODS
A prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary hospital from June 2016 to January 2017. Adult critically ill patients with circulatory shock were eligible for inclusion. Cardiac output was measured simultaneously using FloTrac™ with a fourth-generation algorithm (CO
RESULT
RESULTS
Eighty-nine paired cardiac output measurements were performed in 17 patients during their first 24 h of admittance. CO
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In critically ill patients with circulatory shock, there was disagreement and clinically unacceptable trending ability between values of cardiac output obtained by uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis and critical care ultrasonography.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02912624, registered on September 23, 2016.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31011425
doi: 10.1186/s40560-019-0373-5
pii: 373
pmc: PMC6460822
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02912624']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
21Investigateurs
Geert Koster
(G)
Frederik Keus
(F)
Iwan C C van der Horst
(ICC)
Willem Dieperink
(W)
Roos Bleijendaal
(R)
Yasmin F Cawale
(YF)
Ramon P Clement
(RP)
Devon Dijkhuizen
(D)
Ruben J Eck
(RJ)
Bart Hiemstra
(B)
Anja Haker
(A)
Casper D H Hilbink
(CDH)
Thomas Kaufmann
(T)
Martiene Klasen
(M)
Manon Klaver
(M)
Laura J Schokking
(LJ)
Victor W Sikkens
(VW)
Madelon Vos
(M)
Justin Woerlee
(J)
Renske Wiersema
(R)
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The local institutional review board (Medisch Ethische Toetsingscommissie, University Medical Center Groningen) approved the study (M15.168207 and M16.193856). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.Not applicable.TWLS received honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences (Irvine, California, USA) for consulting and for giving lectures. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Références
J Clin Monit Comput. 1999 Feb;15(2):85-91
pubmed: 12578081
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2004 Sep;21(9):700-7
pubmed: 15595582
Crit Care Med. 2006 Mar;34(3):589-97
pubmed: 16505643
Crit Care Med. 2006 May;34(5):1297-310
pubmed: 16540951
J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17(4):571-82
pubmed: 17613642
Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7
pubmed: 18064739
Anesth Analg. 2010 Nov;111(5):1180-92
pubmed: 20736431
Intensive Care Med. 2011 May;37(5):801-7
pubmed: 21373821
Br J Anaesth. 2014 Apr;112(4):626-37
pubmed: 24431387
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Dec;40(12):1795-815
pubmed: 25392034
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2015;29(3):656-62
pubmed: 25440654
Br J Anaesth. 2015 Feb;114(2):235-43
pubmed: 25516277
J Clin Monit Comput. 2016 Apr;30(2):149-55
pubmed: 26026648
Anesth Analg. 2015 Aug;121(2):514-24
pubmed: 26039419
Intensive Care Med. 2016 Aug;42(8):1223-33
pubmed: 26932349
Intensive Care Med. 2016 Sep;42(9):1350-9
pubmed: 27155605
Br J Anaesth. 2016 Jun;116(6):750-8
pubmed: 27199309
J Clin Monit Comput. 2016 Dec;30(6):753-755
pubmed: 27317555
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2018 Apr;113(3):192-201
pubmed: 28474097
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2017 Aug;23(4):302-309
pubmed: 28538248
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2017 Aug;23(4):326-333
pubmed: 28590257
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 27;7(9):e017170
pubmed: 28963297
J Anesth. 2018 Jun;32(3):387-393
pubmed: 29616345
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018 Jun;24(3):165-172
pubmed: 29621027
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Jun;44(6):730-741
pubmed: 29725695
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2019 Apr;33(4):953-960
pubmed: 30077561
Intensive Care Med. 2019 Feb;45(2):190-200
pubmed: 30706120
Circulation. 1984 Sep;70(3):425-31
pubmed: 6744546
JAMA. 1993 Dec 22-29;270(24):2957-63
pubmed: 8254858