BJA Advance Access published online on July 12, 2007
British Journal of Anaesthesia, doi:10.1093/bja/aem188
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clinical evaluation of the FloTrac/VigileoTM system and two established continuous cardiac output monitoring devices in patients undergoing cardiac surgery
1 Institute of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Triemli City Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
2 Division of Cardiac Surgery, Triemli City Hospital Zurich and Clinic of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
* Corresponding author: Institute of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Triemli City Hospital Zurich, Birmensdorferstr. 497, 8063 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: christoph.hofer{at}triemli.stzh.ch
Accepted for publication May 6, 2007.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background: Assessment of cardiac output (CO) by the FloTrac/VigileoTM system may offer a less invasive means of determining the CO than either the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) or the PiCCOplusTM system. The aim of this study was to compare CO measurements made using the FloTrac/VigileoTM system with upgraded software (FCO, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine CA, USA), the PiCCOplusTM system (PCO, Pulsion Medical Systems, Munich, Germany) and continuous CO monitoring using a PAC (CCO; VigilanceTM monitoring, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine CA, USA) with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution (ICO). The study was conducted in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery.
Methods: Thirty-one patients with preserved left ventricular function were enrolled. CCO, FCO, and PCO were recorded in the perioperative period at six predefined time points after achieving stable haemodynamic conditions; ICO was determined from the mean of three bolus injections. Bland–Altman analysis was used to compare CCO, FCO, and PCO with ICO.
Results: Bland–Altman analysis revealed a comparable mean bias and limits of agreement for all tested continuous CO monitoring devices using ICO as reference method. Agreement for all devices decreased in the postoperative period.
Conclusion: The performance of the FloTrac/VigileoTM system, the PiCCOplusTM, and the VigilanceTM CCO monitoring for CO measurement were comparable when tested against intermittent thermodilution in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery.
Keywords: heart, cardiac output; measurement techniques, cardiac ouput; measurement techniques, thermodilution
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Cardiac output (CO) is monitored in critically ill patients to assess cardiac function with the primary goal of maintaining adequate tissue perfusion. In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, thermodilution using a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) is still the most frequently applied technique. However, the value of the PAC has been questioned in recent years and its impact on outcome is a matter of debate;1–4 several less invasive techniques which avoid the risks associated with the PAC have become available for routine CO monitoring.5 6 One of these is pulse contour analysis using the PiCCOplusTM system (Pulsion Medical Systems, Munich, Germany). This records aortic pressure waveforms using a thermistor-tipped catheter. The CO is calculated using an algorithm based on the area under the systolic part of the pressure waveform after calibration by transpulmonary thermodilution.7 This calibration is also used to adjust for individual vascular compliance. The system has extensively been evaluated and most studies demonstrate adequate results using the current device and software when compared with pulmonary artery thermodilution.8–11
Recently, a new pulse wave analysis device that does not require external calibration has become available.12 The FloTrac/VigileoTM system (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) obtains the pressure wave signal from any standard peripheral arterial line and the SD of pulse pressure is empirically correlated to the stroke volume (SV) based on patient characteristics (age, gender, body height, and weight) after automatic adjustment for actual vascular compliance. Early validation studies for this device showed conflicting results.12–15 As a consequence, the FloTrac/VigileoTM software with its underlying algorithm was improved and the time window for vascular adjustment was reduced.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of CO measurements in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery; the CO was determined using four devices: (1) the FloTrac/VigileoTM system with upgraded software (FCO), (2) the PiCCOplusTM system (PCO), (3) continuous CO monitoring using a PAC (CCO, in combination with a VigilanceTM monitor, Edwards Lifesciences), and (4) intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Patients and setting
Patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting and/or valve surgery gave their informed consent to the study, which was approved by the local Ethics Committee. Exclusion criteria were reduced left and right ventricular function (ejection fraction <40%), preoperative dysrhythmias, severe valve regurgitation, intracardiac shunts, pulmonary artery hypertension, severe arterial occlusive disease, and body weight <40 kg. A sample size of 25 patients was calculated on the basis of an expected difference of mean values between CO determination by the continuous measurement techniques and intermittent thermodilution of 0.3 litre min–1 (
= 0.05 and power >0.9).
Routine perioperative management
Anaesthesia and postoperative management followed institutional standards. After tracheal intubation, the lungs were ventilated using volume-controlled mode to maintain normocarbia. In the postoperative period, the patients were extubated in the intensive care unit after the completion of the institutional weaning protocol. Routine monitoring (Philips IntelliVueTM Monitoring, Philips Medical Systems, Andover, MA, USA) during the entire perioperative period included pulse oximetry, 5-lead ECG, invasive blood pressure measurement via a peripheral radial arterial line, and central venous and pulmonary capillary wedge pressures (PCWPs) assessed by standard transducers (TruewaveTM PX, Edwards Lifesciences). Postoperative pacing was used in all patients in an AOO or DDD mode at a minimal rate of 80 beats min–1. Haemodynamic therapy was guided by values obtained from continuous CO monitoring using a PAC. I.v. fluids and blood products (target hematocrit >25%), vasodilators (nitroglycerine/phentolamine), and catecholamines (norepinephrine/dobutamine) were used as appropriate to achieve and maintain a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65–75 mm Hg and a cardiac index of >2 litre min–1m–2.
CO monitoring
After induction of anaesthesia, a 7.5 F PAC (Swan-Ganz CCO/VIP PAC, Edwards Lifesciences) was introduced via right internal jugular vein access and attached to a VigilanceTM monitor (Version 6.3, Edwards Lifesciences). A CO monitoring set with a closed cold injectate delivery system (Edwards Lifesciences) used for intermittent thermodilution was connected to the proximal lumen of the PAC.
A 4F thermistor-tipped arterial catheter (PulsiocathTM thermodilution catheter) was inserted into the left femoral artery, its tip advanced to the abdominal aorta, and connected to the stand-alone PiCCOplusTM computer (Version 6.0; Pulsion Medical Systems). Continuous CO measurement was initiated after the initial calibration of the system by a triplicate 20 ml ice-cold normal saline injection through an additional 7F central venous catheter (transpulmonary thermodilution). The calibration process was repeated according to the manufacturer’s guidelines every 8 h.
A FloTracTM sensor kit was connected to the arterial line and connected to the VigileoTM monitor programmed with the 1.07 version of the software for this device (Edwards Lifesciences). Patient data (age, gender, body weight, and height) were entered and after checking the arterial line waveform fidelity, the system was zeroed and CO measurement initiated. The CO was recorded continuously for 24 h except for a short period when the patient was transferred from the operating room into the intensive care unit.
Pulse wave analysis algorithms
FloTrac/VigileoTM system
The algorithm uses the basic equation (1) for measuring CO with heart rate (HR) being determined from the pressure waveform through conventional methods:
|
| (1) |
The calculation of SV can be divided into two parts based on manually entered patient data (age, gender, body length, and weight):
- The contribution of pulse pressure to SV, which is proportional to the SD of arterial pulse pressure (SDap).
- The influence of vascular resistance and compliance on SV integrated into a single variable (
). Thus, CO is calculated as follows (2):
(2)
Different characteristics of the blood pressure16 are utilized in equation (3) for the derivation of from a multivariate regression model (M). These include Langewouter’s aortic compliance (Cp),17 MAP, the variance, skewness, and kurtosis of the pressure wave curve. Body surface area (BSA) also appears in the model. Further details of this proprietary algorithm are not disclosed by Edwards Lifesciences.
|
| (3) |
Pulse pressure is recorded at a frequency of 100 Hz and SDap is determined during a window of 20 s. After the early clinical experiences with this algorithm, the rate of the adjustment of was reduced from the initial interval of 10 to 1 min in the latest version of the software.
PiCCOplusTM system
The basics of the PiCCOplusTM method and its underlying algorithm have been described in detail elsewhere.7 Briefly, CO is calculated every 3 s by measuring the area under the systolic part of the arterial pressure waveform and dividing this area by the aortic impedance.18 For an adjustment of individual aortic compliance, calibration by transpulmonary thermodilution is required. Modification of the algorithm enhanced accuracy by the additional analysis of the shape of the pressure waveform.10
Study protocol
The CO data from all devices and standard haemodynamic data (HR, MAP, central venous pressure, and PCWP) were recorded by an observer not involved in the routine management of the patient at predefined time points before transpulmonary thermodilution measurements. Transpulmonary thermodilution measurements were made under stable haemodynamic conditions. Three injections of iced NaCl 0.9% (10 ml, 4–6°C) were made using a closed cold injectate delivery system and the mean value recorded. The measurements were free of interference from surgery or infusion boluses. Predefined measurement points were: T1=after induction of anaesthesia (study initiation), T2 =1 h post-initiation (after sternotomy), T3=4 h post-initiation (at skin closure), T4–6=8, 12, and 24 h post-initiation (after the transfer to the intensive care unit).
Statistics
Statistical analysis was done using StatView® for Windows version 5.01® (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and SPSS for Windows Release 12.0.2 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The data were tested for normality by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. ANOVA for repeated measurements (Bonferroni–Dunn) was done to assess the differences on haemodynamic variables between consecutive measurements. Bland–Altman analyses19 and paired t-tests were done to compare CO values obtained by the different devices with CO assessed by intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution. Unless otherwise stated data are presented as mean and SD.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Thirty-one patients, mean age 67 (range 46–85 yr) yr, 26 male, BMI 28.2(5.3) kg m–2 with preserved left ventricular function [preoperative ejection fraction 62.4(12.2) %], undergoing elective cardiac surgery were enrolled. All patients were ASA physical status III and were in sinus rhythm before the induction of anaesthesia. Eleven patients (35%) underwent aortic valve replacement, one patient (3%) underwent mitral valve replacement, three patients (10%) underwent mitral valve reconstruction, three patients (10%) underwent coronary artery bypass grafting, and 13 patients (42%) underwent combined procedures.
The mean duration of mild hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass was 100(11) min, mean operation time was 261(48) min, and mean ICU stay was 2(1) days. The measurement period was uneventful for all patients. After the removal of the PiCCO catheter, one patient (3%) developed arterial bleeding resulting in an inguino-scrotal haematoma requiring surgical intervention.
There was a significant increase in HR and CO assessed by all tested techniques during the observation period (Table 1). Systemic vascular resistance significantly decreased, whereas all other haemodynamic variables (MAP, MPAP, CVP, and PCWP) showed no significant changes over time.
|
CO assessed by the FloTrac/VigileoTM and the PiCCOplusTM system was significantly higher for the first two measurements when compared with CO assessed by intermittent thermodilution. The CO values ranged between 2.4 and 7.5 litre min–1 during the intraoperative period and between 3.1 and 9.3 litre min–1 in the postoperative period.
Bland–Altman analysis (Figures 1 and 2, Table 2) revealed a consistently positive mean bias for the FloTrac/VigileoTM system, the PiCCOplusTM system, and continuous CO monitoring by the PAC when compared with the intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution at every measurement point during the intraoperative and the postoperative observation period. This finding indicates an overestimation of CO by all continuous measurement techniques. Agreement for all devices decreased early after the intervention (T3–4).
|
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In the present study, we tested a new pulse wave analysis device and two established systems for continuous CO monitoring and compared these with the clinical standard, intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution, in patients with preserved left ventricular function undergoing elective cardiac surgery. The results show that the performance of the FloTrac/VigileoTM system, the PiCCOplusTM system, and continuous CO monitoring by PAC were comparable.
Both the FloTrac/VigileoTM and the PiCCOplusTM system are based on pulse pressure analysis. They calculate the flow from the arterial pressure waveform, which is itself the result of an interaction between the SV and the elastic properties of the systemic vascular system. Thus, resistance, compliance, and impedance at the site of the signal detection must be considered. The FloTrac/VigileoTM system calculates CO by the analysis of the impact of vascular tone on pressure and adjustment for actual vascular tone based on waveform analysis and patient characteristics. In contrast to other available pulse contour techniques,10 20 the system does not require an external reference method for calibration or subsequent correction. Therefore, it minimizes operator dependency and its automatic adjustment for the changes of vascular tone may eliminate drift phenomena.
Recently published studies investigating the FloTrac/VigileoTM system showed inconsistent results.12–15 Manecke and Auger12 reported a mean bias of 0.55 (limits of agreement 1.96) litre min–1 between the FloTrac/VigileoTM device and the intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in 50 patients studied after cardiac surgery. Opdam and colleagues14 reported data from 251 measurements in six patients. Unfortunately, 66% of all measurements were done in only one patient. Therefore, their results are difficult to interpret. Sander and colleagues15 observed an overall bias of 0.6 (limits of agreement 2.8) litre min–1 between the FloTrac/VigileoTM system and intermittent thermodilution in 30 cardiac surgery patients. Most recently, another study performed in 40 patients in a similar setting revealed a large mean bias of 0.46 (limits of agreement 1.15) litre min–1m–2.13 In our study, in contrast, better results for the FloTrac/VigileoTM system were found in terms of a smaller bias or smaller limits of agreement for all measurements. These findings may be explained by the fact that the software has been modified recently. In order to better reflect the actual vascular status of the patient, the time window for vascular adjustment has been reduced from 10 to 1 min. Therefore, haemodynamic changes before the measurement periods—even under conditions of haemodynamic stability (i.e. after sternotomy)—may have had a larger impact on measurements in the studies performed by Sander and colleagues15 or Mayer and colleagues.13
Overall bias and limits of agreement for the PiCCOplusTM system obtained in this study correspond to the data of previously published work.8–11 In contrast to the FloTrac/VigileoTM system, this system uses transpulmonary thermodilution for calibration. Inaccurate measurements as a result of variations in systemic vascular resistance were observed when the initial algorithm was used.21 However, after the modification of the algorithm to better address the individual patient’s aortic compliance, the majority of studies found a good agreement between the PiCCOplusTM values and the intermittent thermodilution.8 10 11 The modified algorithm also appears to be more robust in the situations of haemodynamic changes.9 Interestingly, recent studies evaluating this system in cardiac surgery patients revealed reliable measurements before cardiopulmonary bypass, but less accurate results if no recalibration was performed early after cardiopulmonary bypass.22 23 In this period of surgery, temperature and fluid shifts and changes of vascular tone occur,24 and early recalibration has been suggested to improve performance.23 Despite the early recalibration in our study, we still observed a decreased agreement between the PiCCOplusTM system and the reference method in the postoperative period. This finding may be related to an increase in signal-to-noise ratio of transpulmonary thermodilution because of potential thermal influences on this calibration technique after cardiopulmonary bypass. Therefore, calibration by means of thermodilution may not necessarily increase the accuracy of a CO monitoring device. Although the PiCCOplusTM system is considered a ‘less-invasive’ CO monitoring device, measurements are typically derived via a femoral catheter. Complications may occur, primarily ischaemia or bleeding related to femoral artery puncture and catheter use with an incidence up to 5%.25 One of our patients enrolled in this study had a major bleeding complication requiring surgical intervention after removal of the PiCCOTM catheter.
Despite the development and the increased clinical use of different less invasive devices in the last years, continuous CO monitoring using the PAC remains the standard, especially when monitoring of pulmonary artery pressures is indicated. Corresponding to previous investigations,22 26 we found a closer agreement between continuous CO monitoring and intermittent thermodilution in the pre-intervention period than in the early postoperative period. However, these changes of accuracy were less distinct than that reported previously.
Some limitations and methodological aspects have to be considered. The CO was assessed in low-risk cardiac surgical patients and values obtained were in a narrow range. Although the study revealed a comparable performance of the continuous CO monitoring systems, large limits of agreement were observed indicating that all continuous monitoring systems studied have limitations as regards their reliability and accuracy. Intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution was used as a reference method for CO measurement. This technique is often referred to as the clinical standard, but it has well-known pitfalls related to operator variation, patient pathologies, and the indicator used.27 While operator influences were minimized and patient pathologies known to induce bias were excluded, thermal influences in the postoperative period are likely to have influenced our results. Techniques independent of thermal influence or flow measurements as additional reference methods would have been of interest in this situation. Finally, Bland–Altman analysis is a widely accepted method to compare two methods measuring the same variable. However, it has often been applied in a misleading manner. Initially designed to compare single measurements,19 it is increasingly used to compare repeated measurements. In such situations, an incorrect assumption is made that measurements are independent. However, it may be used for repeated measurements to calculate separate values and draw separate figures for each time point.
In conclusion, the performance of all continuous CO measurement devices, i.e. the FloTrac/VigileoTM and the PiCCOplus systemTM, and continuous monitoring by PAC, was comparable in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. However, limitations regarding the reliability of all continuous cardiac techniques in this clinical situation should be borne in mind.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Declaration of interest. This study was supported by a research grant from Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA. The Institute of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Triemli City Hospital has existing research grants from Pulsion Medical Systems, Munich, Germany and Edwards Lifesciences. C.K.H. has received lecture fees from both companies, Pulsion Medical Systems, Munich, Germany and Edwards Lifesciences, in the past. 
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1 Connors AF Jr, Speroff T, Dawson NV, et al. The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT Investigators. JAMA (1996) 276:889–97.
2 Guyatt G. A randomized control trial of right-heart catheterization in critically ill patients. Ontario Intensive Care Study Group. J Intensive Care Med (1991) 6:91–5.[Medline]
3 Sandham JD, Hull RD, Brant RF, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of the use of pulmonary-artery catheters in high-risk surgical patients. N Engl J Med (2003) 348:5–14.
4 Takala J. The pulmonary artery catheter: the tool versus treatments based on the tool. Crit Care (2006) 10:162.[CrossRef][Medline]
5 Bowdle TA. Complications of invasive monitoring. Anesthesiol Clin North America (2002) 20:571–88.[Medline]
6 Rhodes A, Grounds RM. New technologies for measuring cardiac output: the future? Curr Opin Crit Care (2005) 11:224–6.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
7 Goedje O, Hoeke K, Lichtwarck-Aschoff M, Faltchauser A, Lamm P, Reichart B. Continuous cardiac output by femoral arterial thermodilution calibrated pulse contour analysis: comparison with pulmonary arterial thermodilution. Crit Care Med (1999) 27:2407–12.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
8 Della Rocca G, Costa MG, Coccia C, et al. Cardiac output monitoring: aortic transpulmonary thermodilution and pulse contour analysis agree with standard thermodilution methods in patients undergoing lung transplantation. Can J Anaesth (2003) 50:707–11.[Web of Science][Medline]
9 Felbinger TW, Reuter DA, Eltzschig HK, Bayerlein J, Goetz AE. Cardiac index measurements during rapid preload changes: a comparison of pulmonary artery thermodilution with arterial pulse contour analysis. J Clin Anesth (2005) 17:241–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
10 Goedje O, Hoke K, Goetz AE, et al. Reliability of a new algorithm for continuous cardiac output determination by pulse-contour analysis during haemodynamic instability. Crit Care Med (2002) 30:52–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
11 Halvorsen PS, Espinoza A, Lundblad R, et al. Agreement between PiCCO pulse-contour analysis, pulmonal artery thermodilution and transthoracic thermodilution during off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand (2006) 50:1050–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
12 Manecke GR Jr, Auger WR. Cardiac output determination from the arterial pressure wave: clinical testing of a novel algorithm that does not require calibration. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth (2007) 21:3–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
13 Mayer J, Boldt J, Schollhorn T, Rohm KD, Mengistu AM, Suttner S. Semi-invasive monitoring of cardiac output by a new device using arterial pressure waveform analysis: a comparison with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth (2007) 98:176–82.
14 Opdam HI, Wan L, Bellomo R. A pilot assessment of the FloTracTM cardiac output monitoring system. Intensive Care Med (2006) 33:344–9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
15 Sander M, Spies CD, Grubitzsch H, Foer A, Muller M, von Heymann C. Comparison of uncalibrated arterial waveform analysis in cardiac surgery patients with thermodilution cardiac output measurements. Crit Care (2006) 10:R164.[CrossRef][Medline]
16 Wesseling KH, Weber H, de Wit B. Estimated five component viscoelastic model parameters for human arterial walls. J Biomech (1973) 6:13–24.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
17 Langewouters GJ, Wesseling KH, Goedhard WJ. The pressure dependent dynamic elasticity of 35 thoracic and 16 abdominal human aortas in vitro described by a five component model. J Biomech (1985) 18:613–20.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
18 Wesseling KH, Purschke R, Smith NT, Wust HJ, de Wit B, Weber HA. A computer module for the continuous monitoring of cardiac output in the operating theatre and the ICU. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg (1976) 27:327–41.[Medline]
19 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet (1986) 1:307–10.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
20 Yamashita K, Nishiyama T, Yokoyama T, Abe H, Manabe M. Cardiac output by PulseCO is not interchangeable with thermodilution in patients undergoing OPCAB. Can J Anaesth (2005) 52:530–4.[Web of Science][Medline]
21 Rodig G, Prasser C, Keyl C, Liebold A, Hobbhahn J. Continuous cardiac output measurement: pulse contour analysis vs. thermodilution technique in cardiac surgical patients. Br J Anaesth (1999) 82:525–30.
22 Rauch H, Muller M, Fleischer F, Bauer H, Martin E, Bottiger BW. Pulse contour analysis versus thermodilution in cardiac surgery patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand (2002) 46:424–9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
23 Sander M, von Heymann C, Foer A, et al. Pulse contour analysis after normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass in cardiac surgery patients. Crit Care (2005) 9:R729–R34.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
24 Latson TW, Whitten CW, O’Flaherty D. Ventilation, thermal noise, and errors in cardiac output measurements after cardiopulmonary bypass. Anesthesiology (1993) 79:1233–43.[Web of Science][Medline]
25 Frezza EE, Mezghebe H. Indications and complications of arterial catheter use in surgical or medical intensive care units: analysis of 4932 patients. Am Surg (1998) 64:127–31.[Web of Science][Medline]
26 Bottiger BW, Rauch H, Bohrer H, et al. Continuous versus intermittent cardiac output measurement in cardiac surgical patients undergoing hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth (1995) 9:405–11.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
27 Nishikawa T, Dohi S. Errors in the measurement of cardiac output by thermodilution. Can J Anaesth (1993) 40:142–53.[Web of Science][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. Derichard, E. Robin, B. Tavernier, M. Costecalde, M. Fleyfel, J. Onimus, G. Lebuffe, J.-P. Chambon, and B. Vallet Automated pulse pressure and stroke volume variations from radial artery: evaluation during major abdominal surgery Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2009; 103(5): 678 - 684. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Lahner, B. Kabon, C. Marschalek, A. Chiari, G. Pestel, A. Kaider, E. Fleischmann, and H. Hetz Evaluation of stroke volume variation obtained by arterial pulse contour analysis to predict fluid responsiveness intraoperatively Br. J. Anaesth., September 1, 2009; 103(3): 346 - 351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R.-M. B.G.E. Breukers, A.B. J. Groeneveld, R. B.P. de Wilde, and J. R.C. Jansen Transpulmonary versus continuous thermodilution cardiac output after valvular and coronary artery surgery Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, July 1, 2009; 9(1): 4 - 8. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. R. Concha, V. F. Mertz, L. I. Cortinez, K. A. Gonzalez, and J. M. Butte Pulse Contour Analysis and Transesophageal Echocardiography: A Comparison of Measurements of Cardiac Output During Laparoscopic Colon Surgery Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2009; 109(1): 114 - 118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Chatti, S. de Rudniki, S. Marque, A. S. Dumenil, A. Descorps-Declere, A. Cariou, J. Duranteau, M. Aout, E. Vicaut, and B. P. Cholley Comparison of two versions of the Vigileo-FloTracTM system (1.03 and 1.07) for stroke volume estimation: a multicentre, blinded comparison with oesophageal Doppler measurements Br. J. Anaesth., April 1, 2009; 102(4): 463 - 469. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Compton and J.-H. Schafer Noninvasive Cardiac Output Determination: Broadening the Applicability of Hemodynamic Monitoring Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, March 1, 2009; 13(1): 44 - 55. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Funk, E. W. Moretti, and T. J. Gan Minimally Invasive Cardiac Output Monitoring in the Perioperative Setting Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2009; 108(3): 887 - 897. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Biancofiore, L. A. H. Critchley, A. Lee, L. Bindi, M. Bisa, M. Esposito, L. Meacci, R. Mozzo, P. DeSimone, L. Urbani, et al. Evaluation of an uncalibrated arterial pulse contour cardiac output monitoring system in cirrhotic patients undergoing liver surgery Br. J. Anaesth., January 1, 2009; 102(1): 47 - 54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. W. L. Scheeren, C. Wiesenack, F. D. Compton, B. Zukunft, C. Hoffmann, W. Zidek, and J.-H. Schaefer Performance of a minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring system (Flotrac/Vigileo) Br. J. Anaesth., August 1, 2008; 101(2): 279 - 280. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. E. C. de Waal, S. Rex, C. L. J. J. Kruitwagen, C. J. Kalkman, and W. F. Buhre Stroke volume variation obtained with FloTrac/VigileoTM fails to predict fluid responsiveness in coronary artery bypass graft patients Br. J. Anaesth., May 1, 2008; 100(5): 725 - 726. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Matthieu, N.-G. Karine, C. Vincent, V. Alain, C. J. Francois, R. Philippe, and S. Francois Cardiac Output Measurement in Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation: Pulmonary Artery Catheter Versus Uncalibrated Arterial Pressure Waveform Analysis Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2008; 106(5): 1480 - 1486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. S. Myles and J. Cui I. Using the Bland Altman method to measure agreement with repeated measures Br. J. Anaesth., September 1, 2007; 99(3): 309 - 311. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||