• T D Phan, R Kluger, and C Wan.
• Staff Specialist Anaesthetist, Department of Anaesthesia and Acute Pain Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria.
• Anaesth Intensive Care. 2016 May 1; 44 (3): 382-90.

AbstractThere is lack of data about the agreement of minimally invasive cardiac output monitors, which make it impossible to determine if they are interchangeable or differ objectively in tracking physiological trends. We studied three commonly used devices: the oesophageal Doppler and two arterial pressure-based devices, the Vigileo FloTrac™ and LiDCOrapid™. The aim of this study was to compare the agreement of these three monitors in adult patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery. Measurements were taken at baseline and after predefined clinical interventions of fluid, metaraminol or ephedrine bolus. From 24 patients, 131 events, averaging 5.2 events per patient, were analysed. The cardiac index of LiDCOrapid versus FloTrac had a mean bias of -6.0% (limits of agreement from -51% to 39%) and concordance of over 80% to the three clinical interventions. The cardiac index of Doppler versus LiDCOrapid and Doppler versus FloTrac, had an increasing negative bias at higher mean cardiac outputs and there was significantly poorer concordance to all interventions. Of the preload-responsive parameters, Doppler stroke volume index, Doppler systolic flow time and FloTrac stroke volume variation were fair at predicting fluid responsiveness while other parameters were poor. While there is reasonable agreement between the two arterial pressure-derived cardiac output devices (LiDCOrapid and Vigileo FloTrac), these two devices differ significantly to the oesophageal Doppler technology in response to common clinical intraoperative interventions, representing a limitation to how interchangeable these technologies are in measuring cardiac output.

29 keywords...

hide…