Is measurement of central venous pressure required to estimate systemic vascular resistance? A retrospective cohort study

Background The clinical range of central venous pressure (CVP) (typically 5 to 15 mmHg) is much less than the range of mean arterial blood pressure (60 to 120 mmHg), suggesting that CVP may have little impact on estimation of systemic vascular resistance (SVR). The accuracy and feasibility of using an arbitrary CVP rather than actual CVP for the estimation of SVR during intraoperative period is not known. Methods Using vital records obtained from patients who underwent neurological and cardiac surgery, the present study retrospectively calculated SVR using fixed values of CVP (0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 mmHg) and randomly changing values of CVP (5 to 15 mmHg) and compared these calculated SVRs with actual SVR, calculated using actual CVP. Differences between actual SVR and SVRs based on fixed and random CVPs were quantified as root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). Bland-Altman analysis and four-quadrant plot analysis were performed. Results A total of 34 patients are included, including 18 who underwent neurosurgery and 16 who underwent cardiac surgery; 501,380 s (139.3 h) of data was analyzed. The SVR derived from a fixed CVP of 10 mmHg (SVRf10) showed the highest accuracy (RMSE: 115 and 104 [dynes/sec/cm− 5] and MAPE: 6.3 and 5.7% in neurological and cardiac surgery, respectively). The 95% limits of agreement between SVRf10 and actual SVR were − 208.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], − 306.3 to − 148.1) and 242.2 (95% CI, 181.8 to 340.0) dynes/sec/cm− 5 in neurosurgery and − 268.1 (95% CI, − 367.5 to − 207.7) and 163.2 (95% CI, 102.9 to 262.6) dynes/sec/cm− 5 in cardiac surgery. All the SVRs derived from the fixed CVPs (regardless of its absolute value) showed excellent trending ability (concordance rate > 0.99). Conclusions SVR can be estimated from a fixed value of CVP without causing significant deviation or a loss of trending ability. However, caution is needed when using point estimates of SVR when the actual CVP is expected to be out of the typical clinical range. Trial registration This study was registered Clinical Research Information Service, a clinical trial registry in South Korea (KCT0006187).

Comparison of Bioimpedance Versus Pulse Contour Analysis for Intraoperative Cardiac Index Monitoring in Patients Undergoing Kidney Transplantation

Background: Cardiac index (CI; cardiac output indexed to body surface area) is routinely measured during kidney transplant surgery. Bioimpedance cardiometry is a transthoracic impedance as the non-invasive alternative for hemodynamic monitoring, using semi-invasive uncalibrated pulse wave or contour (UPC) analysis. Objectives: We performed a cross-sectional observational study on 50 kidney transplant patients to compare the CI measurement agreement, concordance rate, and trending ability between bioimpedance and UPC analysis. Methods: For each patient, CI was measured by bioimpedance analysis (ICONTM) and UPC analysis (EV1000TM) devices at three time points: after induction, during incision, and at reperfusion. The device measurement accuracy was assessed by the bias value, limit of agreement (LoA), and percentage error (PE) using Bland-Altman analyses. Trending ability was assessed by angular bias and polar concordance through four-quadrant and polar plot analyses. Results: From each time point and pooled measurement, the correlation coefficients were 0.267, 0.327, 0.321, and 0.348. Bland-Altman analyses showed mean bias values of 1.18, 1.06, 1.48, and 1.30, LoA of -1.35 to 3.72, -1.39 to 3.51, -1.07 to 4.04, and -1.17 to 3.78, and PE of 82.21, 78.50, 68.74, and 74.58%, respectively. Polar plot analyses revealed angular bias values of -10.37º, -15.01º, -18.68º, and -12.62º, with radial LoA of 89.79º, 85.86º, 83.38º, and 87.82º, respectively. The four-quadrant plot concordance rates were 70.77, 67.35, 65.90, and 69.79%. These analyses showed poor agreement, weak concordance, and low trending ability of bioimpedance cardiometry to UPC analysis. Conclusions: Bioimpedance and UPC analysis for CI measurements were not interchangeable in patients undergoing kidney transplant surgery. Cardiac index monitoring using bioimpedance cardiometry during kidney transplantation should be interpreted cautiously because it showed poor reliability due to low accuracy, precision, and trending ability for CI measurement.

Validation of a novel system to assess end-expiratory lung volume and alveolar recruitment in an ARDS model

Background Personalizing mechanical ventilation requires the development of reliable bedside monitoring techniques. The multiple-breaths nitrogen washin–washout (MBNW) technique is currently available to measure end-expiratory lung volume (EELVMBNW), but the precision of the technique may be poor, with percentage errors ranging from 28 to 57%. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the reliability of a novel MBNW bedside system using fast mainstream sensors to assess EELV in an experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) model, using computed tomography (CT) as the gold standard. The secondary aims of the study were: (1) to evaluate trending ability of the novel system to assess EELV; (2) to evaluate the reliability of estimated alveolar recruitment induced by positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) changes computed from EELVMBNW, using CT as the gold standard. Results Seven pigs were studied in 6 experimental conditions: at baseline, after experimental ARDS and during a decremental PEEP trial at PEEP 16, 12, 6 and 2 cmH2O. EELV was computed at each PEEP step by both the MBNW technique (EELVMBNW) and CT (EELVCT). Repeatability was assessed by performing replicate measurements. Alveolar recruitment between two consecutive PEEP levels after lung injury was measured with CT (VrecCT), and computed from EELV measurements (VrecMBNW) as ΔEELV minus the product of ΔPEEP by static compliance. EELVMBNW and EELVCT were significantly correlated (R2 = 0.97). An acceptable non-constant bias between methods was identified, slightly decreasing toward more negative values as EELV increased. The conversion equation between EELVMBNW and EELVCT was: EELVMBNW = 0.92 × EELVCT + 36. The 95% prediction interval of the bias amounted to ± 86 mL and the percentage error between both methods amounted to 13.7%. The median least significant change between repeated measurements amounted to 8% [CI95%: 4–10%]. EELVMBNW adequately tracked EELVCT changes over time (concordance rate amounting to 100% [CI95%: 87%–100%] and angular bias amounting to − 2° ± 10°). VrecMBNW and VrecCT were significantly correlated (R2 = 0.92). A non-constant bias between methods was identified, slightly increasing toward more positive values as Vrec increased. Conclusions We report a new bedside MBNW technique that reliably assesses EELV in an experimental ARDS model with high precision and excellent trending ability.

Bioreactance Cardiac Output Trending Ability in Preterm Infants: A Single Centre, Longitudinal Study

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> It is unknown whether bioreactance (BR) can accurately track cardiac output (CO) changes in preterm neonates. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A prospective observational longitudinal study was performed in stable preterm infants (&#x3c;37 weeks) during the first 72 h of life. Stroke volume (SV) and CO, as measured by BR and transthoracic echocardiography, were compared. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The mean gestational age (GA) was 31.3 weeks and mean birth weight (BW) was 1,563 g. Overall, 690 measurements were analysed for trending ability by 4-quadrant and polar plots. For non-weight-indexed measurements, 377 (54.6%) lay outside the 5% exclusion zone, the concordance rate was poor (77.2%) with a high mean angular bias (28.6°), wide limits of agreement and a poor angular concordance rate (17.4%). Neither GA, BW nor respiratory support mode affected trending data. Patent ductus arteriosus, postnatal age, and CO level had variable effects on trending data. Trending data for 5 and 10% exclusion zones were also compared. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The ability of BR to track changes in CO is not interchangeable with CO changes as measured by echocardiography. BR, as a trend monitor for changes in CO or SV to determine clinical decisions around interventions in neonatology, should be used with caution.

Bioreactance and fourth-generation pulse contour methods in monitoring cardiac index during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery

The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) is considered the gold standard for cardiac index monitoring. Recently new and less invasive methods to assess cardiac performance have been developed. The aim of our study was to assess the reliability of a non-invasive monitor utilizing bioreactance (Starling SV) and a non-calibrated mini-invasive pulse contour device (FloTrac/EV1000, fourth-generation software) compared to bolus thermodilution technique with PAC (TDCO) during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB). In this prospective study, 579 simultaneous intra- and postoperative cardiac index measurements obtained with Starling SV, FloTrac/EV1000 and TDCO were compared in 20 patients undergoing OPCAB. The agreement of data was investigated by Bland–Altman plots, while trending ability was assessed by four-quadrant plots with error grids. In comparison with TDCO, Starling SV was associated with a bias of 0.13 L min−1 m−2 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.18), wide limits of agreement (LOA, − 1.23 to 1.51 L min−1 m−2), a percentage error (PE) of 60.7%, and poor trending ability. In comparison with TDCO, FloTrac was associated with a bias of 0.01 L min−1 m−2 (95% CI − 0.05 to 0.06), wide LOA (− 1.27 to 1.29 L min−1 m−2), a PE of 56.8% and poor trending ability. Both Starling SV and fourth-generation FloTrac showed acceptable mean bias but imprecision due to wide LOA and high PE, and poor trending ability. These findings indicate limited reliability in monitoring cardiac index in patients undergoing OPCAB.

Estimation of cardiac output variations induced by hemodynamic interventions using multi-beat analysis of arterial waveform: a comparative off-line study with transesophageal Doppler method during non-cardiac surgery

Multi-beat analysis (MBA) of the radial arterial pressure (AP) waveform is a new method that may improve cardiac output (CO) estimation via modelling of the confounding arterial wave reflection. We evaluated the precision and accuracy using the trending ability of the MBA method to estimate absolute CO and variations (ΔCO) during hemodynamic challenges. We reviewed the hemodynamic challenges (fluid challenge or vasopressors) performed when intra-operative hypotension occurred during non-cardiac surgery. The CO was calculated offline using transesophageal Doppler (TED) waveform (COTED) or via application of the MBA algorithm onto the AP waveform (COMBA) before and after hemodynamic challenges. We evaluated the precision and the accuracy according to the Bland & Altman method. We also assessed the trending ability of the MBA by evaluating the percentage of concordance with 15% exclusion zone between ΔCOMBA and ΔCOTED. A non-inferiority margin was set at 87.5%. Among the 58 patients included, 23 (40%) received at least 1 fluid challenge, and 46 (81%) received at least 1 bolus of vasopressors. Before treatment, the COTED was 5.3 (IQR [4.1–8.1]) l min−1, and the COMBA was 4.1 (IQR [3–5.4]) l min−1. The agreement between COTED and COMBA was poor with a 70% percentage error. The bias and lower and upper limits of agreement between COTED and COMBA were 0.9 (CI95 = 0.82 to 1.07) l min−1, −2.8 (CI95 = −2.71 to−2.96) l min−1 and 4.7 (CI95 = 4.61 to 4.86) l min−1, respectively. After hemodynamic challenge, the percentage of concordance (PC) with 15% exclusion zone for ΔCO was 93 (CI97.5 = 90 to 97)%. In this retrospective offline analysis, the accuracy, limits of agreements and percentage error between TED and MBA for the absolute estimation of CO were poor, but the MBA could adequately track induced CO variations measured by TED. The MBA needs further evaluation in prospective studies to confirm those results in clinical practice conditions.

Cardiac Output Evaluation on Septic Shock Patients: Comparison between Calibrated and Uncalibrated Devices during Vasopressor Therapy

There are no reliable, non-invasive methods to accurately measure cardiac output (CO) in septic patients. MostCare (Vytech Health™, Vygon, Padova, Italy), is a beat-to-beat, self calibrated method for CO measurement based on continuous analysis of reflected arterial pressure waveforms. We enrolled 40 patients that were suffering from septic shock and requiring norepinephrine infusion to target blood pressure in order to to evaluate the level of agreement between a calibrated transpulmonary thermodilution device (PiCCO System, Pulsion Medical Systems, Feldkirchen, Germany) and the MostCare system in detecting and tracking changes in CO measurements related to norepinephrine reduction in septic shock patients,. PiCCO was connected to a 5 Fr femoral artery catheter and to a central venous catheter. System calibration was performed with 15 mL of cold saline injection over about 3 s. The MostCare device was connected to the artery catheter to analyze the arterial waveform. Before reducing norepinephrine infusion, the PiCCO system was calibrated, the MostCare waveform was optimized, and the values of the complete hemodynamic profile were recorded (T1). Norepinephrine infusion was then reduced by 0.03 mcg/Kg/min. After 30 min, a new calibration of PiCCO system and a new record on both monitors were performed (T2). Static measurements agreements were assessed using the Bland-Altman test, while trending ability was investigated using polar plot analysis. If volume expansion occurred, then related data were separately analyzed. At T1 mean the CO was 5.38 (SD 0.60) L/min, the mean difference was 0.176 L/min, the limits of agreement (LoA) was +1.39 and −1.04 L/min, and the percentage error (PE) was 22.6%; at T2 the mean CO was 5.44 (SD 0.73) L/min, the mean difference was 0.053 L/min, the LoA was +1.51 and −1.40, and the PE was 27%. After considering the volume expansion between T1 and T2, the mean CO at T1 was 5.39 L/min (SD 0.47), the LoA was +1.09 and −0.78 L/min, and the percentage error (PE) was 17%; at T2 the mean CO was 5.35 L/min (SD 0.81), the LoA was +1.73 and −1.52 L/min, and the PE was 30%. The polar plot diagram seems to confirm the trending ability of MostCare system versus the reference method. In septic patients, when the arterial waveform is accurate, MostCare and PiCCO transpulmonary thermodilution exhibit good agreement even after the reduction of norepinephrine and changes in vascular tone or volume expansion. MostCare could be a rapid to set, reliable, and useful tool to monitor hemodynamic variations in septic patients in emergency contexts where thermodilution methods or other advanced systems are not easily available.