Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24319373›Full record

ArticleTheScientificWorldJournal2013

Nexfin noninvasive continuous hemodynamic monitoring: validation against continuous pulse contour and intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution derived cardiac output in critically ill patients.

Koen Ameloot, Katrijn Van De Vijver, Ole Broch, Niels Van Regenmortel, Inneke De Laet, Karen Schoonheydt, Hilde Dits, Berthold Bein, Manu L N G Malbrain

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04911985 (Appraisal of the Exactness of a Method to Semiinvasively Evaluate the Cardiac Output of ICU-Patients Through the Use of the Pulsioflex Device), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04911985 completednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Appraisal of the Exactness of a Method to Semiinvasively Evaluate the Cardiac Output of ICU-Patients Through the Use of the Pulsioflex Device

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of ZurichRan2015 to 2019Enrolled42ConditionsCardiogenic ShockArmsMeasurement of the Cardiac Output/ Cardiac Index
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Noninvasive pulse contour analysis for determination of cardiac output in patients with chronic heart failure.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2018
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Warm water immersion in patients with chronic heart failure: a pilot study : Shah immerse: HF.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Koen AmelootDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Ziekenhuis Netwerk Antwerpen, ZNA Stuivenberg, Lange Beeldekensstraat 267, 2060 Antwerp, Belgium.
Katrijn Van De Vijver
Ole Broch
Niels Van Regenmortel
Inneke De Laet
Karen Schoonheydt
Hilde Dits
Berthold Bein
Manu L N G Malbrain

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNexfin (Bmeye, Amsterdam, Netherlands) is a noninvasive cardiac output (CO) monitor based on finger arterial pulse contour analysis. The aim of this study was to validate Nexfin CO (NexCO) against thermodilution (TDCO) and pulse contour CO (CCO) by PiCCO (Pulsion Medical Systems, Munich, Germany). PATIENTS AND

methodsIn a mix of critically ill patients (n = 45), NexCO and CCO were measured continuously and recorded at 2-hour intervals during the 8-hour study period. TDCO was measured at 0-4-8 hrs.

resultsNexCO showed a moderate to good (significant) correlation with TDCO (R (2) 0.68, P < 0.001) and CCO (R (2) 0.71, P < 0.001). Bland and Altman analysis comparing NexCO with TDCO revealed a bias (± limits of agreement, LA) of 0.4 ± 2.32 L/min (with 36% error) while analysis comparing NexCO with CCO showed a bias (±LA) of 0.2 ± 2.32 L/min (37% error). NexCO is able to follow changes in TDCO and CCO during the same time interval (level of concordance 89.3% and 81%). Finally, polar plot analysis showed that trending capabilities were acceptable when changes in NexCO (ΔNexCO) were compared to ΔTDCO and ΔCCO (resp., 89% and 88.9% of changes were within the level of 10% limits of agreement).

conclusionwe found a moderate to good correlation between CO measurements obtained with Nexfin and PiCCO.

Indexed as

Blood PressureCardiac OutputCritical IllnessFemaleFingersHemodynamicsHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicPlethysmographyProspective StudiesPulseReproducibility of ResultsThermodilution

Identifiers

PMID24319373
PMCPMC3844244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.