• William C Culp, Sarah Luna, Timothy R Ball, Anthony P Tricinella, David F Gloyna, and Frank J Villamaria.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology, The Texas A&M University College of Medicine, Scott & White Memorial Hospital, Temple, TX. Electronic address: tball@sw.org.
• J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth.. 2013 Dec 1;27(6):1128-32.

ObjectiveTo compare the noninvasive estimated continuous cardiac output (esCCO), device-derived cardiac output (CO) to simultaneous pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) thermodilution (TD) CO.DesignA prospective study comparing pulse wave transit time (estimated continuous cardiac output, esCCO; Nihon Kohden, Tokyo, Japan) to intermittent TD CO.SettingOne academic hospital.ParticipantsPatients presenting for cardiac surgery.InterventionsIntraoperative CO measurements at 4 distinct time points (after induction, after sternotomy, after cardiopulmonary bypass, and after chest closure).Measurements And Main ResultsThe study population consisted of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) IV subjects, 27 (77%) males and 8 (23%) females, with a mean age of 64.6 ± 12.2 years. Data points from esCCO and TD were collected simultaneously and means per time point compared using Bland-Altman, Pearson R coefficient, and percent error. Mean TD CO for the study was 5.4 L/min. The Pearson R coefficient, percent error, and bias in L/min were: 0.57, 44%, 0.66 (after induction); 0.54, 51%, 0.88 (after sternotomy); 0.60, 60%, 0.95 (after cardiopulmonary bypass); and 0.57, 60%, 0.75 (after chest closure) respectively.ConclusionsesCCO is easy to use and provides continuous CO measurements, but has wide limits of agreement and large percentage errors with a consistently positive bias in comparison to TD.Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

25 keywords...

hide…