Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Anesthesiology
Published in: BMC Anesthesiology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

The value of arterial pressure waveform cardiac output measurements in the radial and femoral artery in major cardiac surgery patients

Authors: A. van Drumpt, J. van Bommel, S. Hoeks, F. Grüne, T. Wolvetang, J. Bekkers, M. ter Horst

Published in: BMC Anesthesiology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A relatively new uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform cardiac output (CO) measurement technique is the Pulsioflex-ProAQT® system. Aim of this study was to validate this system in cardiac surgery patients with a specific focus on the evaluation of a difference in the radial versus the femoral arterial access, the value of the auto-calibration modus and the ability to show fluid-induced changes.

Methods

In twenty-five patients scheduled for ascending aorta, aortic arch replacement, or both we measured CO simultaneously by transpulmonary thermodilution (COtd) and by using the ProAQT® system connected to the radial (COpR), as well as the femoral artery catheter (COpF). Hemodynamic data were assessed at predefined time points; from incision until 16 h after ICU admission.

Results

In total 175 (radial) and 179 (femoral) pairs of CO measurement were collected. The accuracy of COpR/COpF was evaluated showing a mean bias of −0.31 L/min (±2.9 L/min) and -0.57 L/min (± 2.8 L/min) with percentage errors of 49 and 46% respectively. Trending ability of the ProAQT® device was evaluated; the four quadrant concordance rates in the radial and femoral artery were 74 and 75% and improved to 77 and 85% after auto-calibration. The mean angular biases in the radial and femoral artery were 6.4° and 6.0° and improved to 5° and 3.3° after auto-calibration. The polar concordance rates in the radial and femoral artery were 65 and 70% and improved to 76 and 84% after auto-calibration. Considering the fluid-induced changes in stroke volume(SV), the coefficient of correlation between the changes in SVtd and SVp was 0.57 (p < 0.01) in the radial artery and 0.60 (p < 0.01) in the femoral artery.

Conclusions

The ProAQT® system can be of additional value if the clinician wants to determine fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgery patients. However, the ProAQT® system provided inaccurate CO measurements compared to transpulmonary thermodilution. The trending ability was poor for COpR but moderate for COpF. Auto-calibration of the system did not improve accuracy of CO measurements nor did it improve the prediction of fluid responsiveness. However, the trending ability was improved by auto-calibration, possibly by correcting a drift over a longer time period.
Literature
1.
Aya HD, Cecconi M, Hamilton M, Rhodes A. Goal-directed therapy in cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(4):510–7.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Cecconi M, Corredor C, Arulkumaran N, Abuella G, Ball J, Grounds RM, et al. Clinical review: Goal-directed therapy-what is the evidence in surgical patients? The effect on different risk groups. Crit Care (London, England). 2013;17(2):209.CrossRef
3.
Hadian M, Pinsky MR. Evidence-based review of the use of the pulmonary artery catheter: impact data and complications. Crit Care (London, England). 2006;10 Suppl 3:S8.CrossRef
4.
Buhre W, Weyland A, Kazmaier S, Hanekop GG, Baryalei MM, Sydow M, et al. Comparison of cardiac output assessed by pulse-contour analysis and thermodilution in patients undergoing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 1999;13(4):437–40.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Ostergaard M, Nielsen J, Rasmussen JP, Berthelsen PG. Cardiac output--pulse contour analysis vs. pulmonary artery thermodilution. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006;50(9):1044–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Hadian M, Kim HK, Severyn DA, Pinsky MR. Cross-comparison of cardiac output trending accuracy of LiDCO, PiCCO, FloTrac and pulmonary artery catheters. Crit Care (London, England). 2010;14(6):R212.CrossRef
7.
Slagt C, Malagon I, Groeneveld AB. Systematic review of uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to determine cardiac output and stroke volume variation. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112(4):626–37.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Broch O, Renner J, Gruenewald M, Meybohm P, Schottler J, Steinfath M, et al. A comparison of third-generation semi-invasive arterial waveform analysis with thermodilution in patients undergoing coronary surgery. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL. 2012;2012:451081.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Desebbe O, Henaine R, Keller G, Koffel C, Garcia H, Rosamel P, et al. Ability of the third-generation FloTrac/Vigileo software to track changes in cardiac output in cardiac surgery patients: a polar plot approach. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2013;27(6):1122–7.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Hofer CK, Button D, Weibel L, Genoni M, Zollinger A. Uncalibrated radial and femoral arterial pressure waveform analysis for continuous cardiac output measurement: an evaluation in cardiac surgery patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2010;24(2):257–64.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Suehiro K, Tanaka K, Funao T, Matsuura T, Mori T, Nishikawa K. Systemic vascular resistance has an impact on the reliability of the Vigileo-FloTrac system in measuring cardiac output and tracking cardiac output changes. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(2):170–7.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Smetkin AA, Hussain A, Kuzkov VV, Bjertnaes LJ, Kirov MY. Validation of cardiac output monitoring based on uncalibrated pulse contour analysis vs transpulmonary thermodilution during off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112(6):1024–31.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Monnet X, Vaquer S, Anguel N, Jozwiak M, Cipriani F, Richard C, et al. Comparison of pulse contour analysis by Pulsioflex and Vigileo to measure and track changes of cardiac output in critically ill patients. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114(2):235–43.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Broch O, Carbonell J, Ferrando C, Metzner M, Carstens A, Albrecht M, et al. Accuracy of an autocalibrated pulse contour analysis in cardiac surgery patients: a bi-center clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2015;15:171.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Chew MS, Aneman A. Haemodynamic monitoring using arterial waveform analysis. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2013;19(3):234–41.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Montenij LJ, de Waal EE, Buhre WF. Arterial waveform analysis in anesthesia and critical care. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2011;24(6):651–6.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Reuter DA, Huang C, Edrich T, Shernan SK, Eltzschig HK. Cardiac output monitoring using indicator-dilution techniques: basics, limits, and perspectives. Anesth Analg. 2010;110(3):799–811.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Monnet X, Persichini R, Ktari M, Jozwiak M, Richard C, Teboul JL. Precision of the transpulmonary thermodilution measurements. Crit Care (London, England). 2011;15(4):R204.CrossRef
19.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17(4):571–82.CrossRefPubMed
20.
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(2):85–91.CrossRefPubMed
21.
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(5):1220–35.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Hapfelmeier A, Cecconi M, Saugel B. Cardiac output method comparison studies: the relation of the precision of agreement and the precision of method. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30(2):149–55.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Le Manach Y, Collins GS. Disagreement between cardiac output measurement devices: which device is the gold standard? Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(4):451–3.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Critchley LA. Bias and precision statistics: should we still adhere to the 30% benchmark for cardiac output monitor validation studies? Anesthesiology. 2011;114(5):1245.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Critchley LA, Yang XX, Lee A. Assessment of trending ability of cardiac output monitors by polar plot methodology. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2011;25(3):536–46.CrossRefPubMed
26.
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(5):1180–92.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Saugel B, Grothe O, Wagner JY. Tracking changes in cardiac output: statistical considerations on the 4-quadrant plot and the polar plot methodology. Anesth Analg. 2015;121(2):514–24.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Saugel B, Wagner JY. Innovative noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring: curb your enthusiasm after initial validation studies and evaluate the technologies clinical applicability. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30(5):509–10.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Vasdev S, Chauhan S, Choudhury M, Hote MP, Malik M, Kiran U. Arterial pressure waveform derived cardiac output FloTrac/Vigileo system (third generation software): comparison of two monitoring sites with the thermodilution cardiac output. J Clin Monit Comput. 2012;26(2):115–20.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Schramm S, Albrecht E, Frascarolo P, Chassot PG, Spahn DR. Validity of an arterial pressure waveform analysis device: does the puncture site play a role in the agreement with intermittent pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution measurements? J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2010;24(2):250–6.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Fuda G, Denault A, Deschamps A, Bouchard D, Fortier A, Lambert J, et al. Risk factors involved in central-to-radial arterial pressure gradient during cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2016;122(3):624–32.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The value of arterial pressure waveform cardiac output measurements in the radial and femoral artery in major cardiac surgery patients
Authors
A. van Drumpt
J. van Bommel
S. Hoeks
F. Grüne
T. Wolvetang
J. Bekkers
M. ter Horst
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2253
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0334-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Anesthesiology 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Role of tube size and intranasal compression of the nasotracheal tube in respiratory pressure loss during nasotracheal intubation: a laboratory study

Research article

Propofol and sufentanil may affect the patients’ sleep quality independently of the surgical stress response: a prospective nonrandomized controlled trial in 1033 patients’ undergone diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Research article

Comparison of the trapezius and the adductor pollicis muscle as predictor of good intubating conditions: a randomized controlled trial

Research article

Effect of a simulation-based workshop on breaking bad news for anesthesiology residents: an intervention study

Research article

Impact of intrathecal morphine analgesia on the incidence of pulmonary complications after cardiac surgery: a single center propensity-matched cohort study

Research article

A clinical score to predict mortality in septic acute kidney injury patients requiring continuous renal replacement therapy: the HELENICC score