Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35676705›Full record

ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2022

A comparison of ClearSight noninvasive cardiac output and pulmonary artery bolus thermodilution cardiac output in cardiac surgery patients.

Yuefu Wang, Weiqin Huang, Jiange Han, Yu Tian, Chunrong Wang, Lihuan Li

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03807622 (A Prospective, Nonrandomized, Non-interventional Trial to Evaluate ClearSight System Cardiac Output in China), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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.

NCT03807622 completednot on this map

A Prospective, Nonrandomized, Non-interventional Trial to Evaluate ClearSight System Cardiac Output in China

TypeobservationalSponsorEdwards LifesciencesRan2018 to 2019Enrolled125ConditionsPatient With Clinically Indicated Invasive MonitoringArmsEV1000NI Clinical Platform: Noninvasive Hemodynamic Monitoring utilizing ClearSight System
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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.

Yuefu Wang *Department of Anesthesiology, Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Weiqin Huang *Department of Anesthesiology, Asian Heart Hospital, Wuhan, Wuhan, China.
Jiange Han *Department of Anesthesiology, Chest Hospital, Tianjin, Tianjin, China.
Yu TianDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Chunrong WangDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Lihuan LiDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 527996085@qq.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ClearSight system measures blood pressure non-invasively and determines cardiac output by analyzing the continuous pressure waveform. We performed a multi-center clinical study in China to test the equivalence of cardiac output measured with the ClearSight system (CSCO) and cardiac output measured with the pulmonary artery catheter bolus thermodilution (TDCO) method.

methodsWe included adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery in three Chinese hospitals and measured TDCO and CSCO simultaneously after induction of anesthesia. Hemodynamic stability was required during measurement of TDCO and CSCO. At least four TDCO determinations were performed. The corresponding CSCO was determined as the average over a 30-s period following the injection of each bolus. A data pair for the comparison included the average of three or four accepted TDCO values and the average of the matching CSCO values. Main outcomes included Bland-Altman analysis of bias and standard deviation (SD) and the percentage error (PE).

resultsOne hundred twenty-five subjects were enrolled, and 122 TDCO and CSCO data pairs were available for analysis. Ninety-five (75.4%) data pairs were collected in hemodynamically stable conditions, mean (SD) CSCO was 4.21 (0.78) l/min, and mean TDCO was 3.90 (0.67) l/min. Bias was 0.32 (0.51) l/min, and PE was 25.2%. Analyzing all 122 data pairs resulted in a mean CSCO of 4.19 (0.82) l/min and a mean TDCO of 3.83 (0.71) l/min. Resulting bias was 0.36 (0.53) l/min, and PE was 26.4%.

conclusionsCSCO and TDCO agreed with a low systematic bias. Besides, mean PE was well below the pre-defined 30%. Hemodynamic stability only had a small impact on the analysis. We conclude that CSCO is equivalent to TDCO in cardiac surgery patients. The trial was retrospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03807622 ; January 17, 2019.

Indexed as

Bolus thermodilutionCardiac outputClearSightFinger cuffNoninvasivePulmonary artery catheterPulse wave analysisVolume clamp

Identifiers

PMID35676705
PMCPMC9178897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.