• Moritz Flick, Anas Jobeir, Phillip Hoppe, Mathias Kubik, Dorothea E Rogge, Leonie Schulte-Uentrop, Karim Kouz, and Bernd Saugel.
• From the Department of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany (MF, AJ, PH, DER, LSU, KK, BS), the Department of ... more Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany (MK), the Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany (MK), the Clinic of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Medicine, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany (DER) and the Outcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland, Ohio, USA (BS). less
• Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2022 Aug 1; 39 (8): 695-700.

BackgroundThe new noninvasive finger sensor system NICCI (Getinge; Gothenburg, Sweden) allows continuous cardiac output monitoring. We aimed to investigate its cardiac output measurement performance.ObjectivesTo investigate the NICCI system's cardiac output measurement performance.DesignProspective method comparison study.SettingUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.PatientsFifty-one patients after cardiac surgery.Main Outcome MeasuresWe performed a method comparison study in 51 patients after cardiac surgery to compare NICCI cardiac output (CO NICCI ) and NICCI cardiac output calibrated to pulmonary artery thermodilution cardiac output measurement (CO NICCI-CAL ) with pulmonary artery thermodilution cardiac output (CO PAT ). As a secondary analysis we also compared CNAP cardiac output (CO CNAP ) and externally calibrated CNAP cardiac output (CO CNAP-CAL ) with CO PAT .ResultsWe analysed 299 cardiac output measurement pairs. The mean of the differences (95% limits of agreement) between CO NICCI and CO PAT was 0.6 (-1.8 to 3.1) l min -1 with a percentage error of 48%. The mean of the differences between CO NICCI-CAL and CO PAT was -0.4 (-1.9 to 1.1) l min -1 with a percentage error of 29%. The mean of the differences between CO CNAP and CO PAT was 1.0 (-1.8 to 3.8) l min -1 with a percentage error of 53%. The mean of the differences between CO CNAP-CAL and CO PAT was -0.2 (-2.0 to 1.6) l min -1 with a percentage error of 35%.ConclusionThe agreement between CO NICCI and CO PAT is not clinically acceptable.Trial RegistrationThe study was registered in the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00023189) after inclusion of the first patient on October 2, 2020.Copyright © 2022 European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

19 keywords...

hide…