Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26017364›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2015

Bioreactance Is Not Interchangeable with Thermodilution for Measuring Cardiac Output during Adult Liver Transplantation.

Sangbin Han, Jong Hwan Lee, Gaabsoo Kim, Justin Sangwook Ko, Soo Joo Choi, Ji Hae Kwon, Burn Young Heo, Mi Sook Gwak

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sangbin HanDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jong Hwan LeeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Gaabsoo KimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Justin Sangwook KoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Soo Joo ChoiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ji Hae KwonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Burn Young HeoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Mi Sook GwakDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Sungkyunkwan University · KRSamsung Medical Center · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThermodilution technique using a pulmonary artery catheter is widely used for the assessment of cardiac output (CO) in patients undergoing liver transplantation. However, the unclearness of the risk-benefit ratio of this method has led to an interest in less invasive modalities. Thus, we evaluated whether noninvasive bioreactance CO monitoring is interchangeable with thermodilution technique.

methodsNineteen recipients undergoing adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation were enrolled in this prospective observational study. COs were recorded automatically by the two devices and compared simultaneously at 3-minute intervals. The Bland-Altman plot was used to evaluate the agreement between bioreactance and thermodilution. Clinically acceptable agreement was defined as a percentage error of limits of agreement <30%. The four quadrant plot was used to evaluate concordance between bioreactance and thermodilution. Clinically acceptable concordance was defined as a concordance rate >92%.

resultsA total of 2640 datasets were collected. The mean CO difference between the two techniques was 0.9 l/min, and the 95% limits of agreement were -3.5 l/min and 5.4 l/min with a percentage error of 53.9%. The percentage errors in the dissection, anhepatic, and reperfusion phase were 50.6%, 56.1%, and 53.5%, respectively. The concordance rate between the two techniques was 54.8%.

conclusionBioreactance and thermodilution failed to show acceptable interchangeability in terms of both estimating CO and tracking CO changes in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Thus, the use of bioreactance as an alternative CO monitoring to thermodilution, in spite of its noninvasiveness, would be hard to recommend in these surgical patients.

Indexed as

AgedCardiac OutputCatheterization, Swan-GanzFemaleHumansLiver TransplantationMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicProspective StudiesPulmonary ArteryThermodilution

Identifiers

PMID26017364
PMCPMC4446098
OpenAlexW2158290325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.