-
Critical care medicine · Aug 2007
Comparative Study Clinical TrialValidation of a new arterial pulse contour-based cardiac output device.
- Eric E C de Waal, Cor J Kalkman, Steffen Rex, and Wolfgang F Buhre.
- Division of Perioperative and Emergency Care, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands. e.e.c.dewaal@azu.nl
- Crit. Care Med. 2007 Aug 1;35(8):1904-9.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the accuracy and precision of an arterial pulse contour-based continuous cardiac output device (Vigileo). Vigileo cardiac output (VigileoCO) was compared with intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution cardiac output (TPCO) and an established arterial pulse contour-based cardiac output (PCCO).DesignProspective clinical study.SettingUniversity hospital.PatientsTwenty-two patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.InterventionsDefined volume load during surgery and in the postoperative period.Measurements And Main ResultsWe obtained 184 pairs of VigileoCO and TPCO, 140 pairs of VigileoCO and PCCO, and 140 pairs of PCCO and TPCO. Measurements were performed after induction of anesthesia (T1), after sternotomy (T2), immediately after (T3) and 20 mins after volume challenge with 10 mL.kg hydroxyethyl starch 6% (T4), 15 mins after coronary pulmonary bypass (T5), after retransfusion of autologous blood (T6), after arrival at the intensive care unit (T7), and immediately after (T8) and 20 mins after (T9) a second volume load with 10 mL.kg hydroxyethyl starch 6%. TPCO was used to calibrate PCCO. For pooled data, including uncalibrated PCCO data immediately after weaning from coronary pulmonary bypass (T5), the correlation coefficient of TPCO vs. VigileoCO, PCCO vs. VigileoCO, and TPCO vs. PCCO was 0.75, 0.60, and 0.75 respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of 0.00, -0.01, and 0.02 L.min, the precision (=sd) was 0.87, 1.08, and 0.93 L.min, and the mean error was 33%, 40%, and 35%. When we compared calibrated PCCO values (T2-T4, T6, T7-9), the correlation coefficients of PCCO-VigileoCO and TPCO-PCCO were 0.72 and 0.85, bias was -0.16 and 0.19 L.min, and mean error was 33% and 27%, respectively. Best correlations and the least differences between TPCO and VigileoCO were observed in postbypass closed-chest conditions and in the intensive care unit.ConclusionsOur results showed that VigileoCO enables clinically acceptable assessment of cardiac output in postbypass closed-chest conditions and during stable conditions in the intensive care unit.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:

- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.