Abstract
INTRODUCTION. Pharmacological alterations of the arterial blood pressure waveform
(ABPW) can affect arterial pressure-based cardiac output systems (APCOs) independently of stroke volume. We assessed the: 1) effect of the increase in ABP during a norepinephrine ‘double-pump’ manoeuvre (NEDP) on APCOs and trans-pulmonary thermo-dilution (TPTDCO); 2) agreement between TPTDCO and four APCOs (PiCCO, LiDCO, PRAM, Vigileo v03.02.pic).
METHODS. TPTDCO was performed in fifteen ICU patients before, during and after NEDP. The same ABPW, was used by each APCOs to calculate CCO.
RESULTS. During NEDP, TPTDCO did not change significantly from baseline [median
%(IQR)], [4.5%(-0.9 to 13.4)]. Only Vigileo demonstrated a significant increase in CCO, [17.4% (6.7–34.0)]; p\0.001. Bland–Altmann analysis (TPTDCO-CCO) during NEDP showed a [bias (L/min), limits of agreement (LOA)] of [0.3 (-2.8 to +2.2)] for LiDCO; [0.3 (-2.9 to +3.6)] for PiCCO; [-0.3 (-5.3 to +4.8)] for PRAM; 0.4 (-2.3 to +3.2) for Vigileo. The percentage error was unacceptable for all systems: (35.1% LiDCO, 42.7% PiCCO, 75.4% PRAM, 37.7% Vigileo). Only PiCCO and LiDCO had low PE at baseline (16.3 and 14.5%, respectively) compared to PRAM (97.2%) and Vigileo (57.4%).
CONCLUSIONS. ABPCOs fail to track TPTDCO during NEDP. This suggests that uncalibrated systems are unreliable during changes in vascular tone and reactivity and that calibrated systems need to be re-calibrated with significant changes in tone.
(ABPW) can affect arterial pressure-based cardiac output systems (APCOs) independently of stroke volume. We assessed the: 1) effect of the increase in ABP during a norepinephrine ‘double-pump’ manoeuvre (NEDP) on APCOs and trans-pulmonary thermo-dilution (TPTDCO); 2) agreement between TPTDCO and four APCOs (PiCCO, LiDCO, PRAM, Vigileo v03.02.pic).
METHODS. TPTDCO was performed in fifteen ICU patients before, during and after NEDP. The same ABPW, was used by each APCOs to calculate CCO.
RESULTS. During NEDP, TPTDCO did not change significantly from baseline [median
%(IQR)], [4.5%(-0.9 to 13.4)]. Only Vigileo demonstrated a significant increase in CCO, [17.4% (6.7–34.0)]; p\0.001. Bland–Altmann analysis (TPTDCO-CCO) during NEDP showed a [bias (L/min), limits of agreement (LOA)] of [0.3 (-2.8 to +2.2)] for LiDCO; [0.3 (-2.9 to +3.6)] for PiCCO; [-0.3 (-5.3 to +4.8)] for PRAM; 0.4 (-2.3 to +3.2) for Vigileo. The percentage error was unacceptable for all systems: (35.1% LiDCO, 42.7% PiCCO, 75.4% PRAM, 37.7% Vigileo). Only PiCCO and LiDCO had low PE at baseline (16.3 and 14.5%, respectively) compared to PRAM (97.2%) and Vigileo (57.4%).
CONCLUSIONS. ABPCOs fail to track TPTDCO during NEDP. This suggests that uncalibrated systems are unreliable during changes in vascular tone and reactivity and that calibrated systems need to be re-calibrated with significant changes in tone.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 1098 |
Pages (from-to) | S280-S280 |
Number of pages | 1 |
Journal | Intensive Care Medicine |
Volume | 37 |
Issue number | S1 |
Early online date | 1 Sept 2011 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Sept 2011 |
Event | 24th ESICM Annual Congress - Berlin, Germany Duration: 1 Oct 2011 → 5 Oct 2011 |