5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Pilot Study Comparing Aortic Valve Area Estimates Derived from Fick Cardiac Output with Estimates Based on Cheetah-NICOM Cardiac Output

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cardiac output during cardiac catheterization is often estimated using the modified Fick method (CO Fick). In this proof-of-concept, prospective non-randomized study carried out in a single academic healthcare centre, we examined whether replacing CO Fick in the Gorlin formula with Cheetah-NICOM monitor cardiac output (CO Cheetah) could produce an accurate and precise estimate of aortic valve area in patients with severe aortic stenosis. In twenty-six subjects, CO Fick and CO Cheetah were obtained concurrently. A spot and 3-minute running average of CO Cheetah was used. Bland and Altman analysis was used to derive bias, 95% limits of agreement (LOA) and confidence intervals (CI). The mean difference (bias) between AVA Cheetah (average) and AVA Fick was 0.11 cm 2 and the 95% LOA were ±0.42 cm 2. The 95% CI of the bias was 0.02–0.2 cm 2. The bias and 95% LOA of AVA Cheetah (spot value) were 0.14 ± 0.42cm 2, with a 95% CI of 0.06–0.23 cm 2. No proportional bias was present. AVA Cheetah thus appears to be a reasonably accurate measure of AVA in patients with severe aortic stenosis compared to AVA Fick measured using a modified Fick CO. However, the limits of agreement were not narrow enough to consider AVA Cheetah and AVA Fick interchangeable.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Why Bland-Altman plots should use X, not (Y+X)/2 when X is a reference method.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Minimally invasive measurement of cardiac output during surgery and critical care: a meta-analysis of accuracy and precision.

            When assessing the accuracy and precision of a new technique for cardiac output measurement, the commonly quoted criterion for acceptability of agreement with a reference standard is that the percentage error (95% limits of agreement/mean cardiac output) should be 30% or less. We reviewed published data on four different minimally invasive methods adapted for use during surgery and critical care: pulse contour techniques, esophageal Doppler, partial carbon dioxide rebreathing, and transthoracic bioimpedance, to assess their bias, precision, and percentage error in agreement with thermodilution. An English language literature search identified published papers since 2000 which examined the agreement in adult patients between bolus thermodilution and each method. For each method a meta-analysis was done using studies in which the first measurement point for each patient could be identified, to obtain a pooled mean bias, precision, and percentage error weighted according to the number of measurements in each study. Forty-seven studies were identified as suitable for inclusion: N studies, n measurements: mean weighted bias [precision, percentage error] were: pulse contour N = 24, n = 714: -0.00 l/min [1.22 l/min, 41.3%]; esophageal Doppler N = 2, n = 57: -0.77 l/min [1.07 l/min, 42.1%]; partial carbon dioxide rebreathing N = 8, n = 167: -0.05 l/min [1.12 l/min, 44.5%]; transthoracic bioimpedance N = 13, n = 435: -0.10 l/min [1.14 l/min, 42.9%]. None of the four methods has achieved agreement with bolus thermodilution which meets the expected 30% limits. The relevance in clinical practice of these arbitrary limits should be reassessed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation.

              To evaluate the clinical utility of a new device for continuous noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM) based on chest bio-reactance compared with cardiac output measured semi-continuously by thermodilution using a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC-CCO). Prospective, single-center study. Intensive care unit. Consecutive adult patients immediately after cardiac surgery. Cardiac output measurements obtained from NICOM and thermodilution were simultaneously recorded minute by minute and compared in 110 patients. We evaluated the accuracy, precision, responsiveness, and reliability of NICOM for detecting cardiac output changes. Tolerance for each of these parameters was specified prospectively. A total of 65,888 pairs of cardiac output measurements were collected. Mean reference values for cardiac output ranged from 2.79 to 9.27 l/min. During periods of stable PAC-CCO (slope<+/-10%, 2SD/mean<20%), the correlation between NICOM and thermodilution was R=0.82; bias was +0.16+/-0.52 l/min (+4.0+/-11.3%), and relative error was 9.1%+/-7.8%. In 85% of patients the relative error was <20%. During periods of increasing output, slopes were similar with the two methods in 96% of patients and intra-class correlation was positive in 96%. Corresponding values during periods of decreasing output were 90% and 84%, respectively. Precision was always better with NICOM than with thermodilution. During hemodynamic challenges, changes were 3.1+/-3.8 min faster with NICOM (p<0.01) and amplitude of changes did not differ significantly. Finally, sensitivity of the NICOM for detecting significant directional changes was 93% and specificity was 93%. Cardiac output measured by NICOM had most often acceptable accuracy, precision, and responsiveness in a wide range of circulatory situations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Mitrev-Ludmil@cooperhealth.edu
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                12 May 2020
                12 May 2020
                2020
                : 10
                : 7852
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0384 9827, GRID grid.411896.3, Department of Anaesthesiology/Division of Cardiac Anaesthesia, Cooper University Hospital, One Cooper Plaza, ; Camden, NJ 08103 USA
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0384 9827, GRID grid.411896.3, Department of Cardiology, Cooper University Hospital, One Cooper Plaza, ; Camden, NJ 08103 USA
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0384 9827, GRID grid.411896.3, Department of Medicine, Cooper University Hospital, One Cooper Plaza, ; Camden, NJ 08103 USA
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0384 9827, GRID grid.411896.3, Chief, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Cooper University Hospital, One Cooper Plaza, ; Camden, NJ 08103 USA
                Article
                64753
                10.1038/s41598-020-64753-3
                7217935
                32398730
                4a1d8147-8568-48f8-afb9-3909bc92de5f
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license 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 license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 6 December 2019
                : 6 April 2020
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Uncategorized
                cardiology,interventional cardiology
                Uncategorized
                cardiology, interventional cardiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article