• José M Alonso-Iñigo, Francisco J Escribá, José I Carrasco, María J Fas, Pilar Argente, José M Galvis, and José E Llopis.
• Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Valencia, Spain. jmalonso@me.com.
• Paediatr Anaesth. 2016 Nov 1; 26 (11): 1097-1105.

BackgroundPressure recording analytical method (PRAM) is a novel, arterial pulse contour method for measuring cardiac output (CO). Validation studies of PRAM in children are few, and have shown contradictory results. The aim of the study was to compare the MostCare® -PRAM vs the Fick method of cardiac output estimation (reference method).MethodsThis is a single-center, prospective observational study in 52 pediatric patients who underwent diagnostic right and left heart catheterization. Cardiac index (CI) measurements with the MostCare® -PRAM vs the Fick method were obtained under hemodynamically stable conditions.ResultsForty CI measurements were performed. The data showed good agreement between CIFick and CIPRAM : r2 = 0.90 (P < 0.001), mean bias -0.075, limits of agreement from -0.56 to 0.41. The percentage error was 17%. Comparable results were obtained for patients <20 kg (r2 = 0.87, P < 0.001), mean bias -0.135, limits of agreement from -0.35 to 0.62, percentage of error 17%.ConclusionsIn pediatric patients undergoing diagnostic right and left heart catheterization, the MostCare® -PRAM was shown to estimate CI with a good level of agreement with the Fick method measurements.© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

22 keywords...

hide…