Not all pulse contour algorithms are created equal

Abstract

We read with interest the article by Lamarche-Fontaneto et al. [1] on cardiac output (CO) monitors in septic shock. We fully agree that pulmonary artery catheterization and transpulmonary thermodilution have value in this context, not only for measuring CO but also for gaining additional insights, such as pulmonary artery pressures or extravascular lung water. However, we felt that pulse contour techniques were dismissed too quickly, without considering the differences between the underlying algorithms.

Pulse contour techniques are generally classified as either calibrated or non-calibrated, with the common belief that calibrated ones are more accurate and precise. It is important to note that the algorithms may be identical. For example, the PiCCO and the ProAQT systems (Getinge, Sweden) use the same pulse contour algorithm. Similarly, the LiDCOplus and LiDCOrapid systems rely on the same PulseCO algorithm (Masimo, USA). The former are simply calibrated or reset periodically using dilution methods, while the latter are not. Consequently, calibrated methods are seen as more accurate, not because they have superior algorithms, but primarily because they are regularly reset to reference values.

Regarding uncalibrated pulse contour analysis, it is unclear why Lamarche-Fontaneto et al. [1] mentioned that “PRAM is not plug-and-play and waveform quality must be continuously verified and optimized.” Unlike the FloTrac and ProAQT algorithms, which require specific pressure transducers, the PRAM algorithm can analyze arterial pressure waveforms recorded with any standard pressure transducer. Therefore, it is easier to set up. This feature, shared with other algorithms (e.g., the MBA algorithm from Retia, USA), also offers the advantage of improving the sustainability and reducing the cost of CO monitoring [2]. Additionally, all algorithms that analyze waveform characteristics are affected by artifacts and damping phenomena, and we are not aware of any studies comparing how abnormal waveforms impact the performance of existing pulse contour algorithms. Notably, the PRAM algorithm now incorporates an electronic filter specifically designed to detect and correct underdamping phenomena [3], which may offer an advantage over other pulse contour methods. Regardless of the algorithm used, clinicians need to inspect the arterial pressure waveform for abnormalities and address them promptly. Failure to do so can lead to inaccurate blood pressure and CO measurements.

Clinical studies have reported significant variability in the performance of uncalibrated pulse contour algorithms. This variability likely stems from differences in clinical settings (operating room vs. ICU) and patient conditions (hemodynamic stability vs. instability). The heterogeneity of validation studies complicates any direct comparison between algorithms. However, a few studies [4,5,6,7,8] have directly compared several pulse contour algorithms against a reference CO measurement technique; these are summarized in Table 1. In addition, some algorithms have been shown to underestimate CO in the context of vasodilation and vasopressor administration [9], while others appear unaffected [10]. These findings emphasize that pulse contour algorithms do not perform uniformly and should not be thrown away in the same bucket.

Table 1 Studies comparing simultaneously several pulse contour algorithms to a reference cardiac output measurement technique

Full size table

In conclusion, we argue that not all uncalibrated pulse contour algorithms are created equal. The most robust among them may warrant further evaluation in complex ICU patients, including those with septic shock.

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

CO:

cardiac output

ICU:

Intensive Care Unit

MBA:

MultiBeat Analysis

PRAM:

Pressure Recording Analytical Method

1. Lamarche-Fontaneto R, Oud L, Howell KD, et al. Cardiac output monitors in septic shock: do they deliver what matters? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2025;29:299.

   Google Scholar

2. Michard F, Romagnoli S, Saugel B. Make my haemodynamic monitor GREEN: sustainable monitoring solutions. Br J Anaesth. 2024;133:1367–70.

   Google Scholar

3. Foti L, Michard F, Villa G, et al. The impact of arterial pressure waveform underdamping and resonance filters on cardiac output measurements with pulse wave analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2022;129:e6–8.

   Google Scholar

4. Hadian M, Kim HK, Severyn DA, Pinsky MR. Cross-comparison of cardiac output trending accuracy of lidco, picco, flotrac and pulmonary artery catheters. Crit Care. 2010;14:R212.

   Google Scholar

5. Romagnoli S, Ricci Z, Romano SM, et al. FloTrac/Vigileo (third generation) and mostcare/pram versus echocardiography for cardiac output Estimation in vascular surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2013;27:1114–21.

   Google Scholar

6. Geisen M, Ganter MT, Hartnack S, et al. Accuracy, precision, and trending of 4 pulse wave analysis techniques in the postoperative period. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018;32:715–22.

   Google Scholar

7. Lamia B, Kim HK, Severyn DA, Pinsky MR. Cross-comparison of trending accuracies of continuous cardiac output measurements: pulse contour analysis, bioreactance, and pulmonary artery catheter. J Clin Monit Comput. 2018;32:33–43.

   Google Scholar

8. Mukkamala R, Kohl BA, Mahajan A. Comparison of accuracy of two uncalibrated pulse contour cardiac output monitors in off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery patients using pulmonary artery catheter-thermodilution as reference. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021;21:189.

   CAS Google Scholar

9. Metzelder S, Coburn M, Fries M, et al. Performance of cardiac output measurement derived from arterial pressure waveform analysis in patients requiring high-dose vasopressor therapy. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:776–84.

   CAS Google Scholar

10. Franchi F, Silvestri R, Cubattoli L, et al. Comparison between an uncalibrated pulse contour method and thermodilution technique for cardiac output Estimation in septic patients. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:202–8.

    CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Not applicable

The authors did not receive any funding for this article.

Authors and Affiliations

1. MiCo, Vallamand, Switzerland

   Frederic Michard

2. Department of Health Science, Section of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Florence, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy

   Stefano Romagnoli

Authors

1. Frederic MichardView author publications

   Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

2. Stefano RomagnoliView author publications

   Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FM drafted the manuscript, and both authors revised the manuscript and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederic Michard.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

FM is the founder and managing director of MiCo, a Swiss consulting and research firm. MiCo does not sell any medical devices. SR received fees for congress presentations, travel, and accommodation from Masimo (Irvine, CA, USA) and Vygon (Ecouen, France).

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

Cite this article

Michard, F., Romagnoli, S. Not all pulse contour algorithms are created equal. Crit Care 29, 336 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05589-z

Download citation

• Received: 18 July 2025

• Accepted: 26 July 2025

• Published: 30 July 2025

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05589-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Copy to clipboard

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

• Hemodynamic monitoring
• Cardiac output
• Pulse contour analysis
• Pulse contour algorithm
• Pulse wave analysis