Comparison of two minimally invasive cardiac-output monitoring systems with different algorithms
Objectives: Minimally invasive haemodynamic monitoring is important in goal-directed therapy. The algorithms used by the FloTrac/Vigileo (FV) and lithium dilution cardiac output rapid (LiDCOrapid) (LR) measurement systems for cardiac output (CO) monitoring differ. We examined correlations of FV and...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Fujita Medical Society
2016-11-01
|
| Series: | Fujita Medical Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/fmj/2/4/2_66/_pdf/-char/en |
| _version_ | 1828930979487547392 |
|---|---|
| author | Yoshitaka Hara Osamu Nishida Tomoyuki Nakamura Naohide Kuriyama Chizuru Yamashita Junpei Shibata Hidefumi Komura |
| author_facet | Yoshitaka Hara Osamu Nishida Tomoyuki Nakamura Naohide Kuriyama Chizuru Yamashita Junpei Shibata Hidefumi Komura |
| author_sort | Yoshitaka Hara |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives: Minimally invasive haemodynamic monitoring is important in goal-directed therapy. The algorithms used by the FloTrac/Vigileo (FV) and lithium dilution cardiac output rapid (LiDCOrapid) (LR) measurement systems for cardiac output (CO) monitoring differ. We examined correlations of FV and LR measurements with thermodilution measurements and determined responsiveness to phenylephrine using both systems. Methods: The FV system was used as the main arterial pressure line, and a second line was connected to the LR system. First, we measured CO at multiple time points using thermodilution and compared these measurements with those obtained simultaneously using the LR and FV systems. Second, CO, systemic vascular resistance and stroke volume (SV) were simultaneously measured using the LR and FV systems after phenylephrine administration. Results: Measurements obtained at 38 time points in 3 patients were compared. There were strong correlations of LR and FV measurements with thermodilution measurements. Bland–Altman analysis indicated that LR (percentage error, PE, 29.8%) and FV (PE, 31.6%) system measurements were equivalent to thermodilution measurements. Following phenylephrine administration, the LR system detected an increase in blood pressure following an increase in vascular resistance, with negligible change in SV. Conversely, the FV system detected little change in vascular pressure and a marked increase in SV. Conclusions: Compared with thermodilution, both the LR and FV systems demonstrated sufficient accuracy and precision for clinical use. The LR system was more accurate than the FV system in reflecting rapid changes in blood pressure, vascular resistance and CO following phenylephrine administration. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-14T00:40:34Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-87f17d5913de49fda2cd7236b37a17ee |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2189-7247 2189-7255 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-14T00:40:34Z |
| publishDate | 2016-11-01 |
| publisher | Fujita Medical Society |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Fujita Medical Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-87f17d5913de49fda2cd7236b37a17ee2022-12-21T23:24:24ZengFujita Medical SocietyFujita Medical Journal2189-72472189-72552016-11-0124667210.20407/fmj.2.4_66Comparison of two minimally invasive cardiac-output monitoring systems with different algorithmsYoshitaka HaraOsamu NishidaTomoyuki NakamuraNaohide KuriyamaChizuru YamashitaJunpei ShibataHidefumi KomuraObjectives: Minimally invasive haemodynamic monitoring is important in goal-directed therapy. The algorithms used by the FloTrac/Vigileo (FV) and lithium dilution cardiac output rapid (LiDCOrapid) (LR) measurement systems for cardiac output (CO) monitoring differ. We examined correlations of FV and LR measurements with thermodilution measurements and determined responsiveness to phenylephrine using both systems. Methods: The FV system was used as the main arterial pressure line, and a second line was connected to the LR system. First, we measured CO at multiple time points using thermodilution and compared these measurements with those obtained simultaneously using the LR and FV systems. Second, CO, systemic vascular resistance and stroke volume (SV) were simultaneously measured using the LR and FV systems after phenylephrine administration. Results: Measurements obtained at 38 time points in 3 patients were compared. There were strong correlations of LR and FV measurements with thermodilution measurements. Bland–Altman analysis indicated that LR (percentage error, PE, 29.8%) and FV (PE, 31.6%) system measurements were equivalent to thermodilution measurements. Following phenylephrine administration, the LR system detected an increase in blood pressure following an increase in vascular resistance, with negligible change in SV. Conversely, the FV system detected little change in vascular pressure and a marked increase in SV. Conclusions: Compared with thermodilution, both the LR and FV systems demonstrated sufficient accuracy and precision for clinical use. The LR system was more accurate than the FV system in reflecting rapid changes in blood pressure, vascular resistance and CO following phenylephrine administration.https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/fmj/2/4/2_66/_pdf/-char/enminimally invasive haemodynamic monitoringpulseco/lidcorapidflotrac/vigileothermodilutioncardiac outputphenylephrine |
| spellingShingle | Yoshitaka Hara Osamu Nishida Tomoyuki Nakamura Naohide Kuriyama Chizuru Yamashita Junpei Shibata Hidefumi Komura Comparison of two minimally invasive cardiac-output monitoring systems with different algorithms Fujita Medical Journal minimally invasive haemodynamic monitoring pulseco/lidcorapid flotrac/vigileo thermodilution cardiac output phenylephrine |
| title | Comparison of two minimally invasive cardiac-output monitoring systems with different algorithms |
| title_full | Comparison of two minimally invasive cardiac-output monitoring systems with different algorithms |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of two minimally invasive cardiac-output monitoring systems with different algorithms |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of two minimally invasive cardiac-output monitoring systems with different algorithms |
| title_short | Comparison of two minimally invasive cardiac-output monitoring systems with different algorithms |
| title_sort | comparison of two minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring systems with different algorithms |
| topic | minimally invasive haemodynamic monitoring pulseco/lidcorapid flotrac/vigileo thermodilution cardiac output phenylephrine |
| url | https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/fmj/2/4/2_66/_pdf/-char/en |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yoshitakahara comparisonoftwominimallyinvasivecardiacoutputmonitoringsystemswithdifferentalgorithms AT osamunishida comparisonoftwominimallyinvasivecardiacoutputmonitoringsystemswithdifferentalgorithms AT tomoyukinakamura comparisonoftwominimallyinvasivecardiacoutputmonitoringsystemswithdifferentalgorithms AT naohidekuriyama comparisonoftwominimallyinvasivecardiacoutputmonitoringsystemswithdifferentalgorithms AT chizuruyamashita comparisonoftwominimallyinvasivecardiacoutputmonitoringsystemswithdifferentalgorithms AT junpeishibata comparisonoftwominimallyinvasivecardiacoutputmonitoringsystemswithdifferentalgorithms AT hidefumikomura comparisonoftwominimallyinvasivecardiacoutputmonitoringsystemswithdifferentalgorithms |