Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28971029›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of critical illness and injury science

Comparison of pulmonary artery catheter, echocardiography, and arterial waveform analysis monitoring in predicting the hemodynamic state during and after cardiac surgery.

Paul Power, Allison Bone, Nicholas Simpson, Cheng-Hon Yap, Simon Gower, Michael Bailey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of critical illness and injury science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Comment on the Edwards FloTracInternational journal of critical illness and injury science
    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

6 authors.

Paul PowerIntensive Care Unit, University Hospital Geelong, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Allison BoneIntensive Care Unit, University Hospital Geelong, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Nicholas SimpsonIntensive Care Unit, University Hospital Geelong, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Cheng-Hon YapDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Geelong, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Simon GowerDepartment of Anaesthesia, University Hospital Geelong, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Michael BaileyDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this trial was to determine whether Flotrac Vigileo™ (FV™) provides a reliable representation of the hemodynamic state of a cardiac surgical patient population when compared to pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) and echocardiography in the peril-operative period.

designThis was a prospective observational trial comparing perioperative hemodynamic states using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), FV™ and PAC during and post cardiothoracic surgery.

settingTertiary regional hospital Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

participants50 consecutive adult cardiothoracic patients with written consent provided.

interventionComparison of the perioperative hemodynamic states using echocardiography, FV™ and PAC was performed. Evaluation of the hemodynamic state (HDS) was performed using TEE, TTE, PAC and FV™ during and after cardiac surgery. Data were compared between the three hemodynamic assessment modalities.

main outcome measurePredicted hemodynamic state.

resultsFV™ and PAC were shown to correlate poorly with TEE/TTE assessment of the hemodynamic state. Both PAC and FV™ showed significant discordance with echocardiographic assessment of the hemodynamic state.

conclusionsIn this trial, FV™ and PAC were shown to agree poorly with TTE/TEE assessment of the HDS in an adult cardiothoracic population. Agreement between the FV™ and PAC was also poor. Caution is recommended in interpreting isolated hemodynamic monitoring data. All hemodynamic monitoring devices have inherent sources of error. Caution is advised in interpreting any single device or measurement as a gold standard. We suggest that hemodynamic measuring devices such as FV™/PAC may act as triggers for a global hemodynamic assessment including consideration of TTE/TEE.

Indexed as

Anesthesiacardiaothoracichemodynamic monitoringintensive care

Identifiers

PMID28971029
PMCPMC5613407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.