Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40561193›Full record

ArticleActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2025

Fourth Generation FloTrac Software Pulse Contour Analysis for Measuring and Trending Cardiac Output: A Method Comparison Study.

Caroline Dinesen, Simon Tilma Vistisen, Rasmus Aagaard, Søren Smith Bisgaard, Peter Juhl-Olsen

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

5 authors.

Caroline DinesenDepartment of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Anesthesia Section, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0009-0008-2908-9957
Simon Tilma VistisenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Rasmus AagaardDepartment of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Anesthesia Section, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Søren Smith BisgaardDepartment of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Anesthesia Section, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Peter Juhl-OlsenDepartment of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Anesthesia Section, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-1951-9091

Funding

Aarhus UniversitetFrimodt-Heineke FondenGrosserer L. F. Foghts Fond
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate cardiac output assessment is crucial for evaluating hemodynamic status and guiding therapeutic interventions. The fourth generation FloTrac software (the FloTrac method) provides minimally invasive, continuous, and real-time cardiac output estimations. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, precision, and trending performance of cardiac output measurements using the FloTrac method compared to bolus thermodilution cardiac output derived from a pulmonary artery catheter (the thermodilution method).

methodsThis prospective clinical interventional study included 41 cardiac surgery patients from September 2023 to September 2024 at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Cardiac output was measured simultaneously using both the FloTrac method and thermodilution method, before and after two preload-increasing interventions: a modified Trendelenburg maneuver and a fluid bolus administration. Bias, limits of agreement, and percentage error between the methods were assessed for each time point. Trending ability was evaluated using four-quadrant plots and concordance rates. Interchangeability of the two methods was accepted with a bias within the range of ±0.5 L/min, PE < 30%, and concordance rates ≥ 90%.

resultsBias ranged from -0.36 to 0.79 L/min depending on the intervention, with consistently wide limits of agreement. Percentage errors were 37% and 35% before and after fluid administration, and 37% and 42% before and after the Trendelenburg maneuver. The concordance rate was 85% after fluid administration and 72% after the modified Trendelenburg maneuver. The FloTrac method identified fluid responders with a sensitivity of 23% and specificity of 84% with the thermodilution method as reference.

conclusionThe FloTrac method did not meet the criteria for interchangeability with the thermodilution method for measuring cardiac output in patients after cardiac surgery. Percentage errors were unacceptable for all time points. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This study assessed an updated version of the FlowTrac cardiac output estimation system, comparing results in clinical cases with some modest preload variation to same time cardiac output measurement with pulmonary artery-based thermodilution measurements. The findings showed that there was limited agreement between these two methods in these settings, suggesting that they do not appear to be interchangeable.

Indexed as

Cardiac OutputMonitoring, IntraoperativeSoftwareAgedAged, 80 and overCardiac Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsThermodilutioncardiac outputFloTracfluid responsivenessminimal invasive

Identifiers

PMID40561193
PMCPMC12193115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.