Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29039063›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2018

Evaluation of the use of the fourth version FloTrac system in cardiac output measurement before and after cardiopulmonary bypass.

Sheng-Yi Lin, An-Hsun Chou, Yung-Fong Tsai, Su-Wei Chang, Min-Wen Yang, Pei-Chi Ting, Chun-Yu Chen

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sheng-Yi LinDepartment of Anesthesiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, No.5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist., Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
An-Hsun ChouDepartment of Anesthesiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, No.5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist., Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Yung-Fong TsaiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, No.5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist., Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Su-Wei ChangClinical Informatics and Medical Statistics Research Center, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Min-Wen YangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, No.5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist., Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Pei-Chi TingDepartment of Anesthesiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, No.5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist., Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Chun-Yu ChenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, No.5, Fuxing St., Guishan Dist., Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan. an5376@adm.cgmh.org.tw.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6213-0853
Chang Gung Memorial Hospital · TWChang Gung University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The FloTrac system is a system for cardiac output (CO) measurement that is less invasive than the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC). The purposes of this study were to (1) compare the level of agreement and trending abilities of CO values measured using the fourth version of the FloTrac system (CCO-FloTrac) and PAC-originated continuous thermodilution (CCO-PAC) and (2) analyze the inadequate CO-discriminating ability of the FloTrac system before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Fifty patients were included. After exclusion, 32 patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB were analyzed. All patients were monitored with a PAC and radial artery catheter connected to the FloTrac system. CO was assessed at 10 timing points during the surgery. In the Bland-Altman analysis, the percentage errors (bias, the limits of agreement) of the CCO-FloTrac were 61.82% (0.16, - 2.15 to 2.47 L min) and 51.80% (0.48, - 1.97 to 2.94 L min) before and after CPB, respectively, compared with CCO-PAC. The concordance rates in the four-quadrant plot were 64.10 and 62.16% and the angular concordance rates (angular mean bias, the radial limits of agreement) in the polar-plot analysis were 30.00% (17.62°, - 70.69° to 105.93°) and 38.63% (- 10.04°, - 96.73° to 76.30°) before and after CPB, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for CCO-FloTrac was 0.56, 0.52, 0.52, and 0.72 for all, ≥ ± 5, ≥ ± 10, and ≥ ± 15% CO changes (ΔCO) of CCO-PAC before CPB, respectively, and 0.59, 0.55, 0.49, and 0.46 for all, ≥ ± 5, ≥ ± 10, and ≥ ± 15% ΔCO of CCO-PAC after CPB, respectively. When CO < 4 L/min was considered inadequate, the Cohen κ coefficient was 0.355 and 0.373 before and after CPB, respectively. The accuracy, trending ability, and inadequate CO-discriminating ability of the fourth version of the FloTrac system in CO monitoring are not statistically acceptable in cardiac surgery.

Indexed as

Cardiac OutputCardiopulmonary BypassAgedCatheterization, PeripheralFemaleHemodynamic MonitoringHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, IntraoperativePulmonary ArteryRadial ArteryReproducibility of ResultsThermodilutionArterial waveform analysisCardiac outputCardiopulmonary bypassCohen κ coefficientFloTrac

Identifiers

PMID29039063
OpenAlexW2766856266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.