Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27300325›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2017

Reliability of cardiac output measurements using LiDCOrapid™ and FloTrac/Vigileo™ across broad ranges of cardiac output values.

Masaaki Asamoto, Ryo Orii, Mikiya Otsuji, Masahiko Bougaki, Yousuke Imai, Yoshitsugu Yamada

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Ejection time: influence of hemodynamics and site of measurement in the arterial tree.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2017
    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

6 authors.

Masaaki AsamotoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Relief Center, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. asamoto-tky@umin.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0770-2860
Ryo OriiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Relief Center, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Mikiya OtsujiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Tokyo Teishin Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Masahiko BougakiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Relief Center, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Yousuke ImaiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Relief Center, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Yoshitsugu YamadaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Relief Center, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Knowing a patient's cardiac output (CO) could contribute to a safe, optimized hemodynamic control during surgery. Precise CO measurements can serve as a guide for resuscitation therapy, catecholamine use, differential diagnosis, and intervention during a hemodynamic crisis. Despite its invasiveness and intermittent nature, the thermodilution technique via a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) remains the clinical gold standard for CO measurements. LiDCOrapid™ (LiDCO, London, UK) and FloTrac/Vigileo™ (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) are less invasive continuous CO monitors that use arterial waveform analysis. Their calculations are based on arterial waveform characteristics and do not require calibration. Here, we evaluated LiDCOrapid™ and FloTrac/Vigileo™ during off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (OPCAB) and living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) surgery. This observational, single-center study included 21 patients (11 OPCAB and 10 LDLT). We performed simultaneous measurements of CO at fixed sampling points during surgery using both devices (LiDCOrapid™ version 1.04-b222 and FloTrac/Vigileo™ version 3.02). The thermodilution technique via a PAC was used to obtain the benchmark data. LiDCOrapid™ and FloTrac/Vigileo™ were used in an uncalibrated fashion. We analyzed the measured cardiac index using a Bland-Altman analysis (the method of variance estimates recovery), a polar plot method (half-moon method), a 4-quadrant plot and compared the widths of the limits of agreement (LOA) using an F test. One OPCAB patient was excluded because of the use of an intra-aortic balloon pumping during surgery, and 20 patients (10 OPCAB and 10 LDLT) were ultimately analyzed. We obtained 149 triplet measurements with a wide range of cardiac index. For the FloTrac/Vigileo™, the bias and percentage error were -0.44 L/min/m

Indexed as

Cardiac OutputAdultAgedArteriesBody WeightCalibrationCatheterizationCoronary Artery BypassCoronary Artery Bypass, Off-PumpCoronary VesselsFemaleHemodynamicsHumansIntra-Aortic Balloon PumpingLiver TransplantationLiving DonorsCardiac outputFlotracLiDCOrapidLow invasive instrumentsMonitoringPulmonary artery catheterPulse wave analysisSystemic vascular resistanceThermodilution

Identifiers

PMID27300325
PMCPMC5500683

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.