Observational studyPloS one2018
Comparison of cardiac function index derived from femoral and jugular indicator injection for transpulmonary thermodilution with the PiCCO-device: A prospective observational study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interference of Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy on PiCCO Hemodynamic Monitoring: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Injection Site Matters: A Comparative Analysis of Transpulmonary Thermodilution via Simultaneous Femoral and Jugular Indicator Injections under Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Contemporary Review of Hemodynamic Monitoring in the Critical Care Setting.US cardiology · 2022Review
- Cardiac output estimation based on arterial and venous blood gas analysis: proposal of a monitoring method.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2021Review
- Accuracy of non-invasive and minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring: where do we stand?Annals of translational medicine · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCardiac function index (CFI) is a trans-pulmonary thermodilution (TPTD)-derived estimate of systolic function. CFI is defined as the ratio of cardiac output divided by global end-diastolic volume GEDV (CFI = CO/GEDV). Several studies demonstrated that the use of femoral venous access results in a marked overestimation of GEDV, while CFI is underestimated. One study suggested a correction formula for femoral venous access that markedly reduced the bias for GEDVI. Therefore, the last PiCCO-algorithm requires information about the CVC-position which suggests a correction of GEDV for femoral access. However, a recent study demonstrated inconsistencies of the last PiCCO algorithm using incorrected GEDV to calculate CFI despite obvious correction of GEDV. Nevertheless, this study was based on mathematical analyses of data displayed in a total of 15 patients equipped with only a femoral, but not with a jugular CVC. Therefore, this study compared CFI derived from the femoral indicator injection TPTD to data derived from jugular indicator injection in 28 patients with both a jugular and a femoral CVC.
methods28 ICU-patients with PiCCO-monitoring were included. Each dataset consisted of three triplicate TPTDs using the jugular venous gold standard access and the femoral access with and without information about the femoral indicator injection to evaluate, if correction for femoral GEDV also pertains to CFI. (CFI_jug: jugular indicator injection; CFI_fem: femoral indicator injection; CFI_fem_cor: femoral indicator injection with correct information about CVC-position; CFI_fem_uncor: femoral indicator injection with uncorrect information about CVC-position; CFI_fem_uncor_form = CFI_fem_uncor * (GEDVI_fem_uncor/GEDVI_fem_cor)).
resultsCFI_fem_uncor was significantly lower than CFI_jug (4.28±1.70 vs. 5.21±1.91 min-1; p<0.001). Similarly, CFI_fem_cor was significantly lower than CFI_jug (4.24±1.62 vs. 5.21±1.91 min-1; p<0.001). This is explained by the finding that CFI_fem_uncor was not different to CFI_fem_cor (4.28±1.70 vs. 4.24±1.62 min-1; p = 0.611). This suggests that correction for femoral CVC does not pertain to CFI. Calculative correction of CFI_fem_uncor by multiplying CFI_fem_uncor by the ratio GEDVI_fem_uncor/GEDVI_jug resulted in CFI_fem_uncor_form which was slightly, but significantly different from the gold standard CFI_jug (5.51±2.00 vs. 5.21±1.91 min-1; p = 0.024). The agreement of measurements classified in the same category of CFI (decreased (<4.5), normal (4.5-6.5) and increased (>6.5 min-1)) was high for CFI_jug and CFI_fem_uncor_form (identical categories in 26 of 28 comparisons; p = 0.49). By contrast, the agreement with CFI_jug was significantly lower for CFI_fem_cor (14 out of 28; p<0.001) and CFI_fem_uncor (15 out of 28; p<0.001).
conclusionsWhile the last PiCCO algorithm obviously corrects GEDVI for femoral indicator injection, this correction is not applied to CFI. Therefore, femoral TPTD indicator injection results in substantially lower values for CFI compared to TPTD using a jugular CVC. Necessarily, uncorrected CFI-values derived from femoral TPTD are misleading and have to be corrected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.