Evaluation of hypotension prediction index software in patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation: retrospective observational study

Abstract

Background

Extreme hemodynamic changes, especially intraoperative hypotension (IOH), are common and often prolonged during Liver Transplant (LT) surgery and during initial hours of recovery. Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI) software is one of the tools which can help in proactive hemodynamic management. The accuracy of the advanced hemodynamic parameters such as Cardiac Output (CO) and Systemic Vascular Resistance (SVR) obtained from HPI software and prediction performance of the HPI in LT surgery remains unknown.

Methods

This was a retrospective observational study conducted in a tertiary academic center with a large liver transplant program. We enrolled 23 adult LT patients who received both Pulmonary Artery Catheter (PAC) and HPI software monitoring. Primarily, we evaluated agreement between PAC and HPI software measured CO and SVR. A priori, we defined a relative difference of less than 20% between measurements as an adequate agreement for a pair of measurements and estimated the Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient and Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement (LOA). Clinically acceptable LOA was defined as ± 1 L.min^-1 for CO and ± 200 dynes s.cm^-5 for SVR. Secondary outcome was the ability of the HPI to predict future hypotension, defined as Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) less than 65 mmHg lasting at least one minute. We estimated sensitivity, positive predictive value, and time from alert to hypotensive events for HPI software.

Results

Overall, 125 pairs of CO and 122 pairs of SVR records were obtained from 23 patients. Based on our predefined criteria, only 42% (95% CI 30%, 55%) of CO records and 53% (95% CI 28%, 72%) of SVR records from HPI software were considered to agree with those from PAC. Across all patients, there were a total of 1860 HPI alerts (HPI ≥ 85) and 642 hypotensive events (MAP < 65 mmHg). Out of the 642 hypotensive events, 618 events were predicted by HPI alert with sensitivity of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95). Many times, the HPI value remained above alert level and was followed by multiple hypotensive events. Thus, to evaluate PPV and time to hypotension metric, we considered only the first HPI alert followed by a hypotensive event (“true alerts”). The “true alert” was the first alert when there were several alerts before a hypotension. There were 614 “true alerts” and the PPV for HPI was 0.33 (95% CI 0.31, 0.35). The median time from HPI alert to hypotension was 3.3 [Q1, Q3: 1, 9.3] mins.

Conclusion

There was poor agreement between the pulmonary artery catheter and HPI software calculated advanced hemodynamic parameters (CO and SVR), in the patients undergoing LT surgery. HPI software had high sensitivity but poor specificity for hypotension prediction, resulting in a high burden of false alarms.