Electrical cardiometry for non-invasive cardiac output monitoring: a method comparison study in patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Gillis Greiwe, Rami Saad, Alexander Hapfelmeier, Niklas Neumann, Pischtaz Tariparast, Bernd Saugel, Moritz Flick
{"title":"Electrical cardiometry for non-invasive cardiac output monitoring: a method comparison study in patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.","authors":"Gillis Greiwe, Rami Saad, Alexander Hapfelmeier, Niklas Neumann, Pischtaz Tariparast, Bernd Saugel, Moritz Flick","doi":"10.1007/s10877-024-01246-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cardiac output can be estimated non-invasively by electrical cardiometry with the ICON® monitor (Osypka Medical GmbH, Berlin, Germany). Conflicting results have been reported regarding the cardiac output measurement performance of electrical cardiometry. In this prospective method comparison study, we compared cardiac output measured using electrical cardiometry (EC-CO; test method) with cardiac output measured using intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution (PATD-CO; reference method) in patients after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. We calculated the mean of the differences with 95%-limits of agreement (95%-LOA) and their corresponding 95%-confidence intervals (95%-CI) using Bland-Altman analysis and calculated the percentage error. We also analyzed trending using four-quadrant plot analysis. We analyzed 157 paired cardiac output measurements of 41 patients. Mean ± standard deviation PATD-CO was 5.1 ± 1.3 L/min and mean EC-CO was 5.3 ± 1.3 L/min. The mean of the differences ± SD between PATD-CO and EC-CO was -0.2 (95%-CI -0.5 to 0.2) ± 1.2 L/min with a lower 95%-LOA of -2.6 (95%-CI -3.1 to -2.0) L/min and an upper 95%-LOA of 2.3 (95%-CI 1.6 to 2.9) L/min. The percentage error was 47% (95%-CI, 37 to 56%). The concordance rate for cardiac output changes was 48%. In this study, the agreement between EC-CO and PATD-CO was not clinically acceptable in patients after CABG surgery. The trending ability of EC-CO was poor.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-024-01246-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cardiac output can be estimated non-invasively by electrical cardiometry with the ICON® monitor (Osypka Medical GmbH, Berlin, Germany). Conflicting results have been reported regarding the cardiac output measurement performance of electrical cardiometry. In this prospective method comparison study, we compared cardiac output measured using electrical cardiometry (EC-CO; test method) with cardiac output measured using intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution (PATD-CO; reference method) in patients after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. We calculated the mean of the differences with 95%-limits of agreement (95%-LOA) and their corresponding 95%-confidence intervals (95%-CI) using Bland-Altman analysis and calculated the percentage error. We also analyzed trending using four-quadrant plot analysis. We analyzed 157 paired cardiac output measurements of 41 patients. Mean ± standard deviation PATD-CO was 5.1 ± 1.3 L/min and mean EC-CO was 5.3 ± 1.3 L/min. The mean of the differences ± SD between PATD-CO and EC-CO was -0.2 (95%-CI -0.5 to 0.2) ± 1.2 L/min with a lower 95%-LOA of -2.6 (95%-CI -3.1 to -2.0) L/min and an upper 95%-LOA of 2.3 (95%-CI 1.6 to 2.9) L/min. The percentage error was 47% (95%-CI, 37 to 56%). The concordance rate for cardiac output changes was 48%. In this study, the agreement between EC-CO and PATD-CO was not clinically acceptable in patients after CABG surgery. The trending ability of EC-CO was poor.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.60%
发文量
144
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine. The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group. The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信