• Karim Kouz, Frederic Michard, Alina Bergholz, Christina Vokuhl, Luisa Briesenick, Phillip Hoppe, Moritz Flick, Gerhard Schön, and Bernd Saugel.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
• Crit Care. 2021 Mar 29; 25 (1): 125.

BackgroundPulmonary artery thermodilution is the clinical reference method for cardiac output monitoring. Because both continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution are used in clinical practice it is important to know whether cardiac output measurements by the two methods are clinically interchangeable.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies comparing cardiac output measurements assessed using continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in adult surgical and critically ill patients. 54 studies with 1522 patients were included in the analysis.ResultsThe heterogeneity across the studies was high. The overall random effects model-derived pooled estimate of the mean of the differences was 0.08 (95%-confidence interval 0.01 to 0.16) L/min with pooled 95%-limits of agreement of - 1.68 to 1.85 L/min and a pooled percentage error of 29.7 (95%-confidence interval 20.5 to 38.9)%.ConclusionThe heterogeneity across clinical studies comparing continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in adult surgical and critically ill patients is high. The overall trueness/accuracy of continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution in comparison with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution is good (indicated by a pooled mean of the differences < 0.1 L/min). Pooled 95%-limits of agreement of - 1.68 to 1.85 L/min and a pooled percentage error of 29.7% suggest that continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution barely passes interchangeability criteria with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020159730.

23 keywords...

hide…