Top

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

Published in:

09-03-2021 | Heart Surgery | Original Research

Estimation of cardiac output variations induced by hemodynamic interventions using multi-beat analysis of arterial waveform: a comparative off-line study with transesophageal Doppler method during non-cardiac surgery

Authors: Arthur Le Gall, Fabrice Vallée, Jona Joachim, Alex Hong, Joaquim Matéo, Alexandre Mebazaa, Etienne Gayat

Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing | Issue 2/2022

Abstract

Multi-beat analysis (MBA) of the radial arterial pressure (AP) waveform is a new method that may improve cardiac output (CO) estimation via modelling of the confounding arterial wave reflection. We evaluated the precision and accuracy using the trending ability of the MBA method to estimate absolute CO and variations (ΔCO) during hemodynamic challenges. We reviewed the hemodynamic challenges (fluid challenge or vasopressors) performed when intra-operative hypotension occurred during non-cardiac surgery. The CO was calculated offline using transesophageal Doppler (TED) waveform (CO_TED) or via application of the MBA algorithm onto the AP waveform (CO_MBA) before and after hemodynamic challenges. We evaluated the precision and the accuracy according to the Bland & Altman method. We also assessed the trending ability of the MBA by evaluating the percentage of concordance with 15% exclusion zone between ΔCO_MBA and ΔCO_TED. A non-inferiority margin was set at 87.5%. Among the 58 patients included, 23 (40%) received at least 1 fluid challenge, and 46 (81%) received at least 1 bolus of vasopressors. Before treatment, the CO_TED was 5.3 (IQR [4.1–8.1]) l min⁻¹, and the CO_MBA was 4.1 (IQR [3–5.4]) l min⁻¹. The agreement between CO_TED and CO_MBA was poor with a 70% percentage error. The bias and lower and upper limits of agreement between CO_TED and CO_MBA were 0.9 (CI₉₅ = 0.82 to 1.07) l min⁻¹, −2.8 (CI₉₅ = −2.71 to−2.96) l min⁻¹ and 4.7 (CI₉₅ = 4.61 to 4.86) l min⁻¹, respectively. After hemodynamic challenge, the percentage of concordance (PC) with 15% exclusion zone for ΔCO was 93 (CI_97.5 = 90 to 97)%. In this retrospective offline analysis, the accuracy, limits of agreements and percentage error between TED and MBA for the absolute estimation of CO were poor, but the MBA could adequately track induced CO variations measured by TED. The MBA needs further evaluation in prospective studies to confirm those results in clinical practice conditions.

Available only for authorised users

Retia Medical LLC. Argos Cardiac Output Monitor Operator’s Manual. Retrieved 18 Sep 2020 from https://www.retiamedical.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/60-001-Rev-C-Appendix-A-Argos-Cardiac-Output-Monitor-Operators-Manual.pdf.

Saugel B, Heeschen J, Hapfelmeier A, Romagnoli S, Greiwe G. Cardiac output estimation using multi-beat analysis of the radial arterial blood pressure waveform: a method comparison study in patients having off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery using intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution as the reference method. J Clin Monit Comput. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-019-00375-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Greiwe G, Peters V, Hapfelmeier A, Romagnoli S, Kubik M, Saugel B. Cardiac output estimation by multi-beat analysis of the radial arterial blood pressure waveform versus intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution: a method comparison study in patients treated in the intensive care unit after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. J Clin Monit Comput. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-019-00374-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Peyton PJ, Chong SW. Minimally invasive measurement of cardiac output during surgery and critical care: a meta-analysis of accuracy and precision. Anesthesiology. 2010;113:1220–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181ee3130.CrossRefPubMed

Dark PM, Singer M. The validity of trans-esophageal Doppler ultrasonography as a measure of cardiac output in critically ill adults. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:2060–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-004-2430-2.CrossRefPubMed

Møller-Sørensen H, Cordtz J, Østergaard M, Nilsson JC, Hansen KL. Transesophageal Doppler reliably tracks changes in cardiac output in comparison with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in cardiac surgery patients. J Clin Monit Comput. 2017;31:135–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-015-9806-4.CrossRefPubMed

Chytra I, Pradl R, Bosman R, Pelnář P, Kasal E, Židková A. Esophageal Doppler-guided fluid management decreases blood lactate levels in multiple-trauma patients: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2007;11:1.CrossRef

Phan TD, Ismail H, Heriot AG, Ho KM. Improving perioperative outcomes: fluid optimization with the esophageal doppler monitor, a metaanalysis and review. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:935–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.08.007.CrossRefPubMed

Vallée F, Passouant O, Le Gall A, Joachim J, Mateo J, Mebazaa A, et al. Norepinephrine reduces arterial compliance less than phenylephrine when treating general anesthesia-induced arterial hypotension. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2017;61:590–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.12905.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Vallée F, Le Gall A, Joachim J, Passouant O, Matéo J, Mari A, et al. Beat-by-beat assessment of cardiac afterload using descending aortic velocity–pressure loop during general anesthesia: a pilot study. J Clin Monit Comput. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-017-9982-5.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Wolak A, Gransar H, Thomson LEJ, Friedman JD, Hachamovitch R, Gutstein A, et al. Aortic size assessment by noncontrast cardiac computed tomography: normal limits by age, gender, and body surface area. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1:200–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2007.11.005.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Caillard A, Gayat E, Tantot A, Dubreuil G, M’Bakulu E, Madadaki C, et al. Comparison of cardiac output measured by oesophageal Doppler ultrasonography or pulse pressure contour wave analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114:893–900. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev001.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Mehta Y. Newer methods of cardiac output monitoring. World J Cardiol. 2014;6:1022. https://doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v6.i9.1022.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Giomarelli P. Cardiac output monitoring by pressure recording analytical method in cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004;26:515–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.05.025.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Zhang G, Mukkamala R. Continuous and minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring by long time interval analysis of a radial arterial pressure waveform: assessment using a large, public intensive care unit patient database. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:339–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aes099.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Mukkamala R, Reisner AT, Hojman HM, Mark RG, Cohen RJ. Continuous cardiac output monitoring by peripheral blood pressure waveform analysis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2006;53:459–67. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2005.869780.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Gardner RM. Direct blood pressure measurement–dynamic response requirements. Anesthesiology. 1981;54:227–36.CrossRef

18.

Glueck DH. Sample size calculations in clinical research 2nd edition by CHOW, S.-C., SHAO, J., and WANG, H. Biometrics. 2008;64:1307–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2008.01138_10.x.CrossRef

19.

Montenij LJ, Buhre WF, Jansen JR, Kruitwagen CL, de Waal EE. Methodology of method comparison studies evaluating the validity of cardiac output monitors: a stepwise approach and checklist † †This Article is accompanied by Editorial Aew110. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116:750–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew094.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Odor PM, Bampoe S, Cecconi M. Cardiac output monitoring: validation studies–how results should be presented. Curr Anesthesiol Rep. 2017;7:410–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40140-017-0239-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Lorne E, Diouf M, de Wilde RBP, Fischer M-O. Assessment of interchangeability rate between 2 methods of measurements: an example with a cardiac output comparison study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97:e9905. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009905.CrossRef

23.

Critchley LA, Critchley JA. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput. 1999;15:85–91.CrossRef

24.

Cecconi M, Rhodes A, Poloniecki J, Della Rocca G, Grounds RM. Bench-to-bedside review: the importance of the precision of the reference technique in method comparison studies–with specific reference to the measurement of cardiac output. Crit Care. 2009;13:201.CrossRef

25.

Critchley LA, Lee A, Ho AM. A critical review of the ability of continuous cardiac output monitors to measure trends in cardiac output. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:1180–92. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181f08a5b.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Singer M. Oesophageal Doppler. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2009;15:244–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0b013e32832b7083.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Monnet X, Anguel N, Naudin B, Jabot J, Richard C, Teboul J-L. Arterial pressure-based cardiac output in septic patients: different accuracy of pulse contour and uncalibrated pressure waveform devices. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2010;14:R109. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc9058.CrossRef

28.

Metzelder S, Coburn M, Fries M, Reinges M, Reich S, Rossaint R, et al. Performance of cardiac output measurement derived from arterial pressure waveform analysis in patients requiring high-dose vasopressor therapy. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:776–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer066.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Slagt C, Malagon I, Groeneveld ABJ. Systematic review of uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to determine cardiac output and stroke volume variation. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112:626–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aet429.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Cannesson M, Jian Z, Chen G, Vu TQ, Hatib F. Effects of phenylephrine on cardiac output and venous return depend on the position of the heart on the Frank-Starling relationship. J Appl Physiol. 2012;113:281–9. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00126.2012.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Maas JJ, Pinsky MR, de Wilde RB, de Jonge E, Jansen JR. Cardiac output response to norepinephrine in postoperative cardiac surgery patients: interpretation with venous return and cardiac function curves. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:143–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e318265ea64.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Estimation of cardiac output variations induced by hemodynamic interventions using multi-beat analysis of arterial waveform: a comparative off-line study with transesophageal Doppler method during non-cardiac surgery
Authors: Arthur Le Gall
Fabrice Vallée
Jona Joachim
Alex Hong
Joaquim Matéo
Alexandre Mebazaa
Etienne Gayat
Publication date: 09-03-2021
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Keywords: Heart Surgery
Heart Surgery
Published in: Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing / Issue 2/2022
Print ISSN: 1387-1307
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2614
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-021-00679-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Estimation of cardiac output variations induced by hemodynamic interventions using multi-beat analysis of arterial waveform: a comparative off-line study with transesophageal Doppler method during non-cardiac surgery

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2022

Velocity-pressure loops can estimate intrinsic and pharmacologically induced changes in cardiac afterload during non-cardiac surgery. An observational study

Accuracy of identifying hospital acquired venous thromboembolism by administrative coding: implications for big data and machine learning research

Non-invasive measurement of pulse pressure variation using a finger-cuff method (CNAP system): a validation study in patients having neurosurgery

Non-invasive electrical cardiometry cardiac output monitoring during prehospital helicopter emergency medical care: a feasibility study

Clinical evaluation of a novel subcutaneous lactate monitor

Central venous pressure swing outperforms diaphragm ultrasound as a measure of inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation in COVID-19 patients