• Gillis Greiwe, Katharina Luehsen, Alexander Hapfelmeier, Dorothea Rogge, Mathias Kubik, Leonie Schulte-Uentrop, and Bernd Saugel.
• From the Department of Anaesthesiology, Centre of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg (GG, KL, DR, LS-U, BS), Institute of Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich (AH), Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Centre Hamburg (MK), Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Centre of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany (MK) and Outcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland, Ohio, USA (BS).
• Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2020 Oct 1; 37 (10): 920-925.

BackgroundInvasive pulse wave analysis is used in peri-operative settings to estimate cardiac output (CO). The 'pressure recording analytical method' (PRAM) implemented in the MostCareUp CO monitor is an invasive pulse wave analysis method using high-frequency sampling and analysis of the pulse wave to directly estimate the arterial impedance as a key variable of the proprietary CO estimation algorithm.ObjectiveTo compare CO estimated by PRAM (PRAM-CO; test method) with CO measured by pulmonary artery thermodilution (PATD-CO; reference method).DesignProspective observational method comparison study. PRAM-CO and PATD-CO were assessed simultaneously at five time points with at least 20 min between measurements. Arterial pressure waveforms were carefully checked for damping artefacts and a proprietary electronic filter of the MostCareUp CO monitor was used to optimise waveform quality.SettingICU of a German university hospital from August 2018 until April 2019.PatientsWe included adult patients admitted to the ICU after elective off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery who were monitored with a radial arterial catheter and a pulmonary artery catheter. Patients with severe heart valve insufficiency or persistent arrhythmia were excluded.Main Outcome Measures And AnalysisPATD-CO and PRAM-CO were compared using Bland-Altman analysis accounting for repeated measurements, the percentage error and trending analysis (four-quadrant plot, concordance rate).ResultsWe analysed 195 paired CO values of 41 patients. Mean PATD-CO and PRAM-CO were 4.99 ± 1.02 and 4.92 ± 1.05 l min, respectively. PATD-CO and PRAM-CO ranged from 3.04 to 8.74 and 2.79 to 8.01 l min, respectively. The mean of the differences between PATD-CO and PRAM-CO was -0.08 ± 0.74 l min with 95% limits of agreement of -1.55 to +1.40 l min. The percentage error was 29.8%. The concordance rate in four-quadrant plot analysis was 92%.ConclusionUsing the system's electronic waveform filter PRAM-CO shows good agreement and trending ability compared with PATD-CO in adults after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.

9 keywords...

hide…