Observational studyJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2013
Cardiac output monitoring in septic shock: evaluation of the third-generation Flotrac-Vigileo.
Observational study in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02565251 (Volemic Resuscitation in Sepsis and Septic Shock), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Volemic Resuscitation in Sepsis and Septic Shock
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement of minimally invasive pulse wave analysis with pulmonary artery and transpulmonary thermodilution cardiac output measurements in perioperative and intensive care medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of anaesthesia · 2026Pooled it
- Moving-average processing enables accurate quantification of time delay and compares the trending ability of cardiac output monitors with different response times.BMC biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Can we reliably use pulse pressure as a surrogate for stroke volume? Physiological background and potential clinical implications for shock resuscitation.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- Contemporary Review of Hemodynamic Monitoring in the Critical Care Setting.US cardiology · 2022Review
- Comparison the accuracy and trending ability of cardiac index measured by the fourth- generation of FloTrac with the PiCCO device in septic shock patientsTurkish journal of medical sciences · 2020Article
- Minimally Invasive Hemodynamic Assessment during Obstetric Hysterectomy for Invasive Placentation with Epidural Anesthesia.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the use of the fourth version FloTrac system in cardiac output measurement before and after cardiopulmonary bypass.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2018Article
- Internal jugular vein variability predicts fluid responsiveness in cardiac surgical patients with mechanical ventilation.Annals of intensive care · 2018Article
- Minimally invasive or noninvasive cardiac output measurement: an update.Journal of anesthesia · 2016Review
- Continuous cardiac output measurement by un-calibrated pulse wave analysis and pulmonary artery catheter in patients with septic shock.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2016Article
- Hemodynamic monitoring in the critically ill: an overview of current cardiac output monitoring methods.F1000Research · 2016Review
- The ability of the Vigileo-FloTrac system to measure cardiac output and track cardiac output changes during one-lung ventilation.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2015Article
- Fluid responsiveness is about stroke volume, and not pulse pressure Yogi: the power of Doppler fluid management and cardiovascular monitoring.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2015Article
- Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.Intensive care medicine · 2014Article
- Comparison of pulmonary artery catheter, echocardiography, and arterial waveform analysis monitoring in predicting the hemodynamic state during and after cardiac surgery.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Continuous cardiac index (CI) monitoring is frequently used in critically ill patients. Few studies have compared the pulse contour-based device FloTrac/Vigileo to pulmonary artery thermodilution (PAC) in terms of accuracy for CI monitoring in septic shock. The aim of our study was to compare the third-generation FloTrac/Vigileo to PAC in septic shock. Eighteen patients with septic shock requiring monitoring by PAC were included in this study. We monitored CI using both FloTrac/Vigileo and continuous thermodilution (PAC-CI). Hemodynamic data were recorded every hour or every 2 min during fluid challenges. The primary endpoint was the global agreement of all CI-paired measurements determined using the Bland-Altman method adapted to replicated data. We tested the linearity of the bias by regression analysis, and compared the reactivity of the 2 techniques during fluid challenges. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis tested the ability of FloTrac/Vigileo to detect concordant and significative CI changes, using PAC-CI as the reference method. Overall, 1,201 paired CI measurements were recorded. The Bland-Altman analysis for global agreement of the 2 techniques showed a bias of -0.1 ± 2.1 L min(-1) m(-2) and a percentage error of 64 %. The overall correlation coefficient between PAC-CI and FloTrac/Vigileo CI was 0.47 (p < 0.01), with r(2) = 0.22. The area under the curve of the ROC curve for detecting concordant and significant changes in CI was 0.72 (0.53; 0.87). In our study, third-generation Flowtrac-Vigileo appears to be too inaccurate to be recommended for CI monitoring in septic shock.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.