ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2021
A performance comparison of the most commonly used minimally invasive monitors of cardiac output.
Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShock is common in critically ill and injured patients. Survival during shock is highly dependent on rapid restoration of tissue oxygenation with therapeutic goals based on cardiac output (CO) optimization. Despite the clinical availability of numerous minimally invasive monitors of CO, limited supporting performance data are available.
methodsFollowing approval of the University of Saskatchewan Animal Research Ethics Board, we assessed the performance and trending ability of PiCCOplus™, FloTrac™, and CardioQ-ODM™ across a range of CO states in pigs. In addition, we assessed the ability of invasive mean arterial blood pressure (iMAP) to follow changes in CO using a periaortic transit-time flow probe as the reference method. Statistical analysis was performed with function-fail, bias and precision, percent error, and linear regression at all flow, low-flow (> 1 standard deviation [SD] below the mean), and high-flow (> 1 SD above the mean) CO conditions.
resultsWe made a total of 116,957 paired CO measurements. The non-invasive CO monitors often failed to provide a CO value (CardioQ-ODM: 40.6% failed measurements; 99% confidence interval [CI], 38.5 to 42.6; FloTrac: 9.6% failed measurements; 99% CI, 8.7 to 10.5; PiCCOplus: 4.7% failed measurements; 99% CI, 4.5 to 4.9; all comparisons, P < 0.001). The invasive mean arterial pressure provided zero failures, failing less often than any of the tested CO monitors (all comparisons, P < 0.001). The PiCCOplus was most interchangeable with the flow probe at all flow states: PiCCOplus (20% error; 99% CI, 19 to 22), CardioQ-ODM (25% error; 99% CI, 23 to 27), FloTrac (34% error; 99% CI, 32 to 38) (all comparisons, P < 0.001). At low-flow states, CardioQ-ODM (43% error; 99% CI, 32 to 63) and Flotrac (45% error; 99% CI, 33 to 70) had similar interchangeability (P = 0.07), both superior to PiCCOplus (48% error; 99% CI, 42 to 60) (P < 0.001). Regarding CO trending, the CardioQ-ODM (correlation coefficient, 0.82; 99% CI, 0.81 to 0.83) was statistically superior to other monitors including iMAP, but at low flows iMAP (correlation coefficient, 0.58; 99% CI, 0.58 to 0.60) was superior to all minimally invasive CO monitors (all comparisons P < 0.001).
conclusionsNone of the minimally invasive monitors of CO performed well at all tested flows. Invasive mean arterial blood pressure most closely tracked CO change at critical flow states.
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.