• Michael Sander, Claudia D Spies, Herko Grubitzsch, Achim Foer, Marcus Müller, and Christian von Heymann.
• Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Charité Campus Mitte, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany. michael.sander@charite.de
• Crit Care. 2006 Jan 1;10(6):R164.

IntroductionCardiac output (CO) monitoring is indicated only in selected patients. In cardiac surgical patients, perioperative haemodynamic management is often guided by CO measurement by pulmonary artery catheterisation (COPAC). Alternative strategies of CO determination have become increasingly accepted in clinical practice because the benefit of guiding therapy by data derived from the PAC remains to be proven and less invasive alternatives are available. Recently, a device offering uncalibrated CO measurement by arterial waveform analysis (COWave) was introduced. As far as this approach is concerned, however, the validity of the CO measurements obtained is utterly unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the bias and the limits of agreement (LOAs) (two standard deviations) of COWave at four specified time points prior, during, and after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with a simultaneous measurement of the gold standard COPAC and aortic transpulmonary thermodilution CO (COTranspulm).MethodsData from 30 patients were analysed during this prospective study. COPAC, COTranspulm, and COWave were determined in all patients at four different time points prior, during, and after CABG surgery. The COPAC and the COTranspulm were measured by triple injection of 10 ml of iced isotone sodium chloride solution into the central venous line of the PAC. Measurements of COWave were simultaneously taken at these time points.ResultsThe overall correlation showed a Spearman correlation coefficient between COPAC and COWave of 0.53 (p < 0.01) and 0.84 (p < 0.01) for COPAC and COTranspulm. Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean bias and LOAs of 0.6 litres per minute and -2.2 to +3.4 litres per minute for COPAC versus COWave and -0.1 litres per minute and -1.8 to +1.6 litres per minute for COPAC versus COTranspulm.ConclusionArterial waveform analysis with an uncalibrated algorithm COWave underestimated COPAC to a clinically relevant extent. The wide range of LOAs requires further evaluation. Better results might be achieved with an improved new algorithm. In contrast to this, we observed a better correlation of thermodilution COTranspulm and thermodilution COPAC measurements prior, during, and after CABG surgery.

18 keywords...

hide…