• Anesthesia and analgesia · May 2014

    Comparative Study

    A Prospective Comparison of a Noninvasive Cardiac Output Monitor Versus Esophageal Doppler Monitor for Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy in Colorectal Surgery Patients.

    The NICOM non-invasive cardiac output monitor is non-inferior to oesophageal doppler monitoring for guiding fluid therapy in colorectal surgery.

    pearl
    • Nathan H Waldron, Timothy E Miller, Julie K Thacker, Amy K Manchester, William D White, John Nardiello, Magdi A Elgasim, Richard E Moon, and Tong J Gan.
    • From the Departments of *Anesthesiology and †Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
    • Anesth. Analg.. 2014 May 1;118(5):966-75.

    BackgroundGoal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) is associated with improved outcomes after surgery. The esophageal Doppler monitor (EDM) is widely used, but has several limitations. The NICOM, a completely noninvasive cardiac output monitor (Cheetah Medical), may be appropriate for guiding GDFT. No prospective studies have compared the NICOM and the EDM. We hypothesized that the NICOM is not significantly different from the EDM for monitoring during GDFT.MethodsOne hundred adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery participated in this study. Patients in phase I (n = 50) had intraoperative GDFT guided by the EDM while the NICOM was connected, and patients in phase II (n = 50) had intraoperative GDFT guided by the NICOM while the EDM was connected. Each patient's stroke volume was optimized using 250-mL colloid boluses. Agreement between the monitors was assessed, and patient outcomes (postoperative pain, nausea, and return of bowel function), complications (renal, pulmonary, infectious, and wound complications), and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared.ResultsUsing a 10% increase in stroke volume after fluid challenge, agreement between monitors was 60% at 5 minutes, 61% at 10 minutes, and 66% at 15 minutes, with no significant systematic disagreement (McNemar P > 0.05) at any time point. The EDM had significantly more missing data than the NICOM. No clinically significant differences were found in total LOS or other outcomes. The mean LOS was 6.56 ± 4.32 days in phase I and 6.07 ± 2.85 days in phase II, and 95% confidence limits for the difference were -0.96 to +1.95 days (P = 0.5016).ConclusionsThe NICOM performs similarly to the EDM in guiding GDFT, with no clinically significant differences in outcomes, and offers increased ease of use as well as fewer missing data points. The NICOM may be a viable alternative monitor to guide GDFT.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

    comment
    1

    All of these non-invasive monitors have inate variability but if you can see past that they do seem to add value to patient care.

    Allan Palmer  Allan Palmer
    pearl
    1

    The NICOM non-invasive cardiac output monitor is non-inferior to oesophageal doppler monitoring for guiding fluid therapy in colorectal surgery.

    Daniel Jolley  Daniel Jolley
     
    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.