Top

Intensive Care Medicine

Published in:

01-07-2007 | Brief Report

Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation

Authors: Pierre Squara, Dominique Denjean, Philippe Estagnasie, Alain Brusset, Jean Claude Dib, Claude Dubois

Published in: Intensive Care Medicine | Issue 7/2007

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the clinical utility of a new device for continuous noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM) based on chest bio-reactance compared with cardiac output measured semi-continuously by thermodilution using a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC-CCO).

Design

Prospective, single-center study.

Setting

Intensive care unit.

Patients

Consecutive adult patients immediately after cardiac surgery.

Interventions

Cardiac output measurements obtained from NICOM and thermodilution were simultaneously recorded minute by minute and compared in 110 patients. We evaluated the accuracy, precision, responsiveness, and reliability of NICOM for detecting cardiac output changes. Tolerance for each of these parameters was specified prospectively.

Measurements and results

A total of 65,888 pairs of cardiac output measurements were collected. Mean reference values for cardiac output ranged from 2.79 to 9.27 l/min. During periods of stable PAC-CCO (slope < ± 10%, 2SD/mean < 20%), the correlation between NICOM and thermodilution was R = 0.82; bias was +0.16 ± 0.52 l/min (+4.0 ± 11.3%), and relative error was 9.1% ± 7.8%. In 85% of patients the relative error was < 20%. During periods of increasing output, slopes were similar with the two methods in 96% of patients and intra-class correlation was positive in 96%. Corresponding values during periods of decreasing output were 90% and 84%, respectively. Precision was always better with NICOM than with thermodilution. During hemodynamic challenges, changes were 3.1 ± 3.8 min faster with NICOM (p < 0.01) and amplitude of changes did not differ significantly. Finally, sensitivity of the NICOM for detecting significant directional changes was 93% and specificity was 93%.

Conclusion

Cardiac output measured by NICOM had most often acceptable accuracy, precision, and responsiveness in a wide range of circulatory situations.

Available only for authorised users

Boldt J, Menges T, Wollbruck M, Hammermann H, Hempelmann G (1994) Is continuous cardiac output measurement using thermodilution reliable in the critically ill patient? Crit Care Med 22:1913–1918CrossRefPubMed

Gratz I, Kraidin J, Jacobi AG, deCastro NG, Spagna P, Larijani GE (1992) Continuous noninvasive cardiac output as estimated from the pulse contour curve. J Clin Monit 8:20–27CrossRefPubMed

Combes A, Berneau JB, Luyt CE, Trouillet JL (2004) Estimation of left ventricular systolic function by single transpulmonary thermodilution. Intensive Care Med 30:1377–1383PubMed

Rocco M, Spadetta G, Morelli A, Dell'Utri D, Porzi P, Conti G, Pietropaoli P (2004) A comparative evaluation of thermodilution and partial CO₂ rebreathing techniques for cardiac output assessment in critically ill patients during assisted ventilation. Intensive Care Med 30:82–87CrossRefPubMed

Su NY, Huang CJ, Tsai P, Hsu YW, Hung YC, Cheng CR (2002) Cardiac output measurement during cardiac surgery: esophageal Doppler versus pulmonary artery catheter. Acta Anaesthesiol Sin 40:127–133PubMed

Dark PM, Singer M (2004) The validity of trans-esophageal Doppler ultrasonography as a measure of cardiac output in critically ill adults. Intensive Care Med 30:2060–2066CrossRefPubMed

Barin E, Haryadi D, Schookin S, Westenskow D, Zubenko V, Beliaev K, Morozov A (2000) Evaluation of a thoracic bioimpedance cardiac output monitor during cardiac catheterization. Crit Care Med 28:698–702CrossRefPubMed

Bernstein DP (1986) Continuous noninvasive real-time monitoring of stroke volume and cardiac output by thoracic electrical bioimpedance. Crit Care Med 14:898–901CrossRefPubMed

Spiess B, Patel M, Soltow L, Wright I (2001) Comparison of bioimpedance versus thermodilution cardiac output during cardiac surgery: evaluation of a second-generation bioimpedance device. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 15:567–573CrossRefPubMed

10.

Leslien S, McKee S, Newby D, Webb D, Denvir M (2004) Non-invasive measurement of cardiac output in patients with chronic heart failure. Blood Press Monit 9:277–280CrossRef

11.

Engoren M, Barbee D (2005) Comparison of cardiac output determined by bioimpedance, thermodilution, and the Fick method. Am J Crit Care 14:40–45PubMed

12.

Squara P, Estagnasie P, Denjean D, Brusset A, Dib J, Dubois C (2006) NICOM (Non Invasive Cardiac Output Monitoring) Clinical Evaluation. Proc Am Thorac Soc 3:A295

13.

Haller M, Zollner C, Briegel J, Forst H (1995) Evaluation of a new continuous thermodilution cardiac output monitor in critically ill patients: a prospective criterion standard study. Crit Care Med 23:860–866CrossRefPubMed

14.

Nelson LD (1997) The new pulmonary artery catheters: continuous venous oximetry, right ventricular ejection fraction, and continuous cardiac output. New Horiz 5:251–258PubMed

15.

Mihm FG, Gettinger A, Hanson CW 3rd, Gilbert HC, Stover EP, Vender JS, Beerle B, Haddow G (1998) A multicenter evaluation of a new continuous cardiac output pulmonary artery catheter system. Crit Care Med 26:1346–1350CrossRefPubMed

16.

Stetz CW, Miller RG, Kelly GE, Raffin TA (1982) Reliability of the thermodilution method in the determination of cardiac output in clinical practice. Am Rev Respir Dis 126:1001–1004PubMed

17.

Le Tulzo Y, Belghith M, Seguin P, Dall'Ava J, Monchi M, Thomas R, Dhainaut JF (1996) Reproducibility of thermodilution cardiac output determination in critically ill patients: comparison between bolus and continuous method. J Clin Monit 12:379–385CrossRefPubMed

18.

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

19.

Hillis LD, Firth BG, Winniford MD (1985) Analysis of factors affecting the variability of Fick versus indicator dilution measurements of cardiac output. Am J Cardiol 56:764–768CrossRefPubMed

20.

Rubini A, Del Monte D, Catena V, Attar I, Cesaro M, Soranzo D, Rattazzi G, Alati GL (1995) Cardiac output measurement by the thermodilution method: an in vitro test of accuracy of three commercially available automatic cardiac output computers. Intensive Care Med 21:154–158CrossRefPubMed

Title: Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation
Authors: Pierre Squara
Dominique Denjean
Philippe Estagnasie
Alain Brusset
Jean Claude Dib
Claude Dubois
Publication date: 01-07-2007
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Intensive Care Medicine / Issue 7/2007
Print ISSN: 0342-4642
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1238
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-007-0640-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation

Abstract

Objective

Design

Setting

Patients

Interventions

Measurements and results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Design

Setting

Patients

Interventions

Measurements and results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2007

Alveolar epithelium and Na,K-ATPase in acute lung injury

Diagnosis of central hypovolemia by using passive leg raising

Variation in natriuretic peptides and mitral flow indexes during successful ventilatory weaning: a preliminary study

Can dynamic indicators help the prediction of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing critically ill patients?

Ceftazidime improves hemodynamics and oxygenation in ovine smoke inhalation injury and septic shock

Reproducibility of bladder pressure measurements in critically ill patients