• Anaesthesia · Jun 2019

    Comparative Study

    Cardiac output monitoring with thermodilution pulse-contour analysis vs. non-invasive pulse-contour analysis.

    • M Boisson, M E Poignard, B Pontier, O Mimoz, B Debaene, and D Frasca.
    • Service d'anesthésie-réanimation, CHU de Poitiers, France.
    • Anaesthesia. 2019 Jun 1; 74 (6): 735-740.

    AbstractIntravenous fluid boluses guided by changes in stroke volume improve some outcomes after major surgery, but invasive measurments may limit use. From October 2016 to May 2018, we compared the agreement and trending ability of a photoplethysmographic device (Clearsight) with a PiCCO, calibrated by thermodilution, for haemodynamic variables in 20 adults undergoing major elective surgery. We analysed 4519 measurement pairs, including before and after 68 boluses of 250 ml crystalloid. The bias and precision of stroke volume measurement by Clearsight were -0.89 ± 4.78 ml compared with the invasive pulse-contour cardiac output device. The coefficient of agreement for stroke volume variation after fluid boluses between the two devices was 0.79 ('strong'). Fluid boluses that increased stroke volume by ≥ 10% increased mean absolute volume (SD) and mean percentage (SD) stroke volume measurements similarly for the invasive pulse-contour cardiac output and Clearsight devices: 9 (4) ml vs. 8 (4) ml and 16% (8%) vs. 15% (10%), respectively, p > 0.05. The non-invasive Clearsight pulse-contour analysis was similar to an invasive pulse-contour device in measuring absolute and changing stroke volumes during major surgery.© 2019 Association of Anaesthetists.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        

    hide…