• Journal of critical care · Sep 1996

    Comparative Study Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical Trial

    Comparison of transesophageal echocardiographic, fick, and thermodilution cardiac output in critically ill patients.

    • O Axler, C Tousignant, C R Thompson, J Dall'ava-Santucci, P T Phang, J A Russell, and K R Walley.
    • Division of Critical Care Medicine, St Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
    • J Crit Care. 1996 Sep 1; 11 (3): 109-16.

    PurposeRecent observations have highlighted errors in the thermodilution technique of measuring cardiac output. Thus, cardiac output measurements using transesophageal echocardiography and the Fick method were compared with simultaneous thermodilution measurements.MethodsIn 13 mechanically ventilated critically ill patients, cardiac output was determined simultaneously using (1) transesophageal echocardiography (COTEE, (2) the Fick method (COFICK, and (3) thermodilution (COTD immediately before and after a rapid infusion of 500 mL of saline. Left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic areas were measured using the transesophageal echocardiographic transgastric short axis view, and COTEE was calculated from the corresponding volumes. Absolute cardiac output values and the changes from before to after saline infusion (delta CO) were compared using analysis of variance, linear regression, and the Bland and Altman method.ResultsThere were no significant differences between COTEE (8.0 +/- 3.4), COFICK (8.4 +/- 3.3), and COTD (8.3 +/- 3.0) or between delta COTEE, delta COFICK, and delta COTD using analysis of variance. However, correlations between COTEE and COTD (r2 = 0.46; P < .00001), COFICK and COTD (r2 = 0.46; P < .0001), and COTEE and COFICK (r2 = 0.42; P < .0001) were only moderately good. Using the method of Bland and Altman, the mean difference (+/-2 standard deviations) between COTEE and COTD was 0.3 +/- 4.3 L/min, between COFICK and COTD was -1.0 +/- 3.8 L/min, and between COTEE and COFICK was 0.6 +/- 5.6 L/min, whereas the difference between delta COTEE and delta COTD was 0% +/- 26%, between delta COFICK and delta COTD was 9% +/- 46%, and between delta COTEE and delta COFICK was 8% +/- 39%.ConclusionsThere are substantial differences in cardiac output as measured by these three methods, best demonstrated using the method of Bland and Altman. The variability of cardiac output and its derivatives (eg, oxygen delivery) should be borne in mind when making clinical decisions on individual patients.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    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: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • 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..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.