Comparison of noninvasive electrical cardiometry and transpulmonary thermodilution for cardiac output measurement in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY BMC Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1186/s12871-025-03005-1
Wenliang Song, Jiayan Guo, Daiyin Cao, Jinlong Jiang, Tao Yang, Xiaoxun Ma, Hao Yuan, Jianfeng Wu, Xiangdong Guan, Xiang Si
{"title":"Comparison of noninvasive electrical cardiometry and transpulmonary thermodilution for cardiac output measurement in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study.","authors":"Wenliang Song, Jiayan Guo, Daiyin Cao, Jinlong Jiang, Tao Yang, Xiaoxun Ma, Hao Yuan, Jianfeng Wu, Xiangdong Guan, Xiang Si","doi":"10.1186/s12871-025-03005-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiac output (CO) monitoring is essential for diagnosing and managing critically ill patients. Recently, a non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring technique, electrical cardiometry (EC), has gathered increasing interest among ICU physicians. This study aimed to explore the accuracy of CO estimated by non-invasive EC (CO<sub>EC</sub>) compared to CO determined by transpulmonary thermodilution (CO<sub>TPTD</sub>) and to evaluate the ability of CO<sub>EC</sub> to track CO<sub>TPTD</sub> changes (ΔCO<sub>TPTD</sub>).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, observational, single-center study was conducted from April 2021 to April 2023, involving patients who required haemodynamic monitoring using a transpulmonary thermodilution device (PiCCO). CO<sub>TPTD</sub> and CO<sub>EC</sub> were recorded simultaneously, with the investigators obtaining the CO<sub>EC</sub> measurements were blinded to the CO<sub>TPTD</sub> results and vice versa. Agreement between the methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis and percentage error (PE). The ability of CO<sub>EC</sub> to track changes in CO<sub>TPTD</sub> was examined using four-quadrant and polar plots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-two patients with PiCCO haemodynamic monitoring were included, yielding 285 paired CO measurements. The bias between CO<sub>EC</sub> and CO<sub>TPTD</sub> was 0.47 L/min, with a limit of agreement (LoA) ranging from -2.91 to 3.85 L/min and a PE of 54.0%. Among 212 pairs of ΔCO data, excluding a central zone of 15% in the four-quadrant plot, the concordance rate between ΔCO<sub>EC</sub> % and ΔCO<sub>TPTD</sub> % was 70%. In the polar plot, excluding a central zone with a radius of 0.625 L/min (10% of the mean CO<sub>TPTD</sub>), the mean polar angle for ΔCO<sub>EC</sub> was 2.2°, with a radial LoA of 56.0°. Exploratory subgroup analysis indicated a PE of 47.0% between CO<sub>EC</sub> and CO<sub>TPTD</sub> and a concordance rate of 72% between ΔCO<sub>EC</sub>% and ΔCO<sub>TPTD</sub>% in patients with normal CO (CO ≥ 4 L/min). In patients with elevated thoracic fluid content (TFC > 35 kΩ), the PE between CO<sub>EC</sub> and CO<sub>TPTD</sub> was 45.0%, with a concordance rate of 64% between ΔCO<sub>EC</sub>% and ΔCO<sub>TPTD</sub>%. Additionally, in patients receiving low-dose norepinephrine equivalents (NEE ≤ 0.25 μg/kg/min), CO<sub>EC</sub> and CO<sub>TPTD</sub> exhibited a PE of 45.0%, while ΔCO<sub>EC</sub>% and ΔCO<sub>TPTD</sub>% achieved a concordance rate of 75% and a radial LoA of 44.2°.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In critically ill patients, non-invasive EC indicated limited accuracy in measuring CO, along with a restricted ability to reliably track CO changes. These findings suggested that EC may not be interchangeable with TPTD in the general ICU population.</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":"25 1","pages":"123"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-03005-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cardiac output (CO) monitoring is essential for diagnosing and managing critically ill patients. Recently, a non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring technique, electrical cardiometry (EC), has gathered increasing interest among ICU physicians. This study aimed to explore the accuracy of CO estimated by non-invasive EC (COEC) compared to CO determined by transpulmonary thermodilution (COTPTD) and to evaluate the ability of COEC to track COTPTD changes (ΔCOTPTD).

Methods: This prospective, observational, single-center study was conducted from April 2021 to April 2023, involving patients who required haemodynamic monitoring using a transpulmonary thermodilution device (PiCCO). COTPTD and COEC were recorded simultaneously, with the investigators obtaining the COEC measurements were blinded to the COTPTD results and vice versa. Agreement between the methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis and percentage error (PE). The ability of COEC to track changes in COTPTD was examined using four-quadrant and polar plots.

Results: Seventy-two patients with PiCCO haemodynamic monitoring were included, yielding 285 paired CO measurements. The bias between COEC and COTPTD was 0.47 L/min, with a limit of agreement (LoA) ranging from -2.91 to 3.85 L/min and a PE of 54.0%. Among 212 pairs of ΔCO data, excluding a central zone of 15% in the four-quadrant plot, the concordance rate between ΔCOEC % and ΔCOTPTD % was 70%. In the polar plot, excluding a central zone with a radius of 0.625 L/min (10% of the mean COTPTD), the mean polar angle for ΔCOEC was 2.2°, with a radial LoA of 56.0°. Exploratory subgroup analysis indicated a PE of 47.0% between COEC and COTPTD and a concordance rate of 72% between ΔCOEC% and ΔCOTPTD% in patients with normal CO (CO ≥ 4 L/min). In patients with elevated thoracic fluid content (TFC > 35 kΩ), the PE between COEC and COTPTD was 45.0%, with a concordance rate of 64% between ΔCOEC% and ΔCOTPTD%. Additionally, in patients receiving low-dose norepinephrine equivalents (NEE ≤ 0.25 μg/kg/min), COEC and COTPTD exhibited a PE of 45.0%, while ΔCOEC% and ΔCOTPTD% achieved a concordance rate of 75% and a radial LoA of 44.2°.

Conclusion: In critically ill patients, non-invasive EC indicated limited accuracy in measuring CO, along with a restricted ability to reliably track CO changes. These findings suggested that EC may not be interchangeable with TPTD in the general ICU population.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Anesthesiology
BMC Anesthesiology ANESTHESIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
349
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of noninvasive electrical cardiometry and transpulmonary thermodilution for cardiac output measurement in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study. Comparison of the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided superficial serratus anterior plane block and intercostal nerve block for rib fractures: a randomized controlled trial. Total bilirubin as a marker for hemolysis and outcome in patients with severe ARDS treated with veno-venous ECMO. Comparison of the effectiveness of two different concentrations of ropivacaine for intrapleural analgesia in reducing stimulatory pain caused by chest tubes after uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomised controlled study. Orbital fistula tract - a case report of a rare cause of impossible facemask ventilation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1