Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33435270›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021

Cardiac Output Evaluation on Septic Shock Patients: Comparison between Calibrated and Uncalibrated Devices during Vasopressor Therapy.

Paolo Persona, Ilaria Valeri, Elisabetta Saraceni, Alessandro De Cassai, Fabrizia Calabrese, Paolo Navalesi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. SIGHCritical care (London, England) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paolo PersonaUOC Institute of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, 35121 Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1584-5148
Ilaria ValeriUOC Institute of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Department of Medicine-DIMED, University of Padua, 35121 Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4408-9951
Elisabetta SaraceniClinical Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, SS. Annunziata Hospital, 66100 Chieti, Italy.
Alessandro De CassaiUOC Institute of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, 35121 Padua, Italy.
Fabrizia CalabreseUOC Institute of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, 35121 Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2987-2227
Paolo NavalesiUOC Institute of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Department of Medicine-DIMED, University of Padua, 35121 Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3733-3453
University of Padua · ITOspedale SS. Annunziata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are no reliable, non-invasive methods to accurately measure cardiac output (CO) in septic patients. MostCare (Vytech Health™, Vygon, Padova, Italy), is a beat-to-beat, self calibrated method for CO measurement based on continuous analysis of reflected arterial pressure waveforms. We enrolled 40 patients that were suffering from septic shock and requiring norepinephrine infusion to target blood pressure in order to to evaluate the level of agreement between a calibrated transpulmonary thermodilution device (PiCCO System, Pulsion Medical Systems, Feldkirchen, Germany) and the MostCare system in detecting and tracking changes in CO measurements related to norepinephrine reduction in septic shock patients,. PiCCO was connected to a 5 Fr femoral artery catheter and to a central venous catheter. System calibration was performed with 15 mL of cold saline injection over about 3 s. The MostCare device was connected to the artery catheter to analyze the arterial waveform. Before reducing norepinephrine infusion, the PiCCO system was calibrated, the MostCare waveform was optimized, and the values of the complete hemodynamic profile were recorded (T1). Norepinephrine infusion was then reduced by 0.03 mcg/Kg/min. After 30 min, a new calibration of PiCCO system and a new record on both monitors were performed (T2). Static measurements agreements were assessed using the Bland-Altman test, while trending ability was investigated using polar plot analysis. If volume expansion occurred, then related data were separately analyzed. At T1 mean the CO was 5.38 (SD 0.60) L/min, the mean difference was 0.176 L/min, the limits of agreement (LoA) was +1.39 and -1.04 L/min, and the percentage error (PE) was 22.6%; at T2 the mean CO was 5.44 (SD 0.73) L/min, the mean difference was 0.053 L/min, the LoA was +1.51 and -1.40, and the PE was 27%. After considering the volume expansion between T1 and T2, the mean CO at T1 was 5.39 L/min (SD 0.47), the LoA was +1.09 and -0.78 L/min, and the percentage error (PE) was 17%; at T2 the mean CO was 5.35 L/min (SD 0.81), the LoA was +1.73 and -1.52 L/min, and the PE was 30%. The polar plot diagram seems to confirm the trending ability of MostCare system versus the reference method. In septic patients, when the arterial waveform is accurate, MostCare and PiCCO transpulmonary thermodilution exhibit good agreement even after the reduction of norepinephrine and changes in vascular tone or volume expansion. MostCare could be a rapid to set, reliable, and useful tool to monitor hemodynamic variations in septic patients in emergency contexts where thermodilution methods or other advanced systems are not easily available.

Indexed as

hemodynamic monitoringMostCareseptic shocktranspulmonary thermodilution

Identifiers

PMID33435270
PMCPMC7826755
OpenAlexW3118308954

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.