Cuesta TJ, Monares ZE, Cruz LJ, Cabrera ML, Barrón C, Galindo MC

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 116-120
PDF size: 188.83 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Cardiac output is the most frequent advanced monitoring in critical care units given its utility to guide resuscitation in septic shock. Echocardiography has been postulated has the gold standard for non-invasive cardiac output measurement, however this technique is operator-dependent and should be performed by an expert. Other techniques such as bioreactance and Doppler monitoring by semiautomatic USCOM system are 100% non-invasive techniques, also these measurements are not operator or expert dependent.
Objective: To analyze the agreement of cardiac output by echocardiography vs Bioreactance and USCOM.
Material and methods: Prospective observational study in which 26 patients diagnosed with septic shock admitted to the intensive care unit were cardiac output was measured by echocardiography, bioreactance and USCOM system. Bland Altman method was performed to analyze the agreement between the different techniques: echocardiography vs USCOM and echocardiography vs bioreactance. Also Linn coefficient was calculated in the same groups of measurements.
Results: Bioreactance vs echocardiography reported a bias (mean of the differences) of -0.08 with a standard deviation (precision) of 0.85 and a 95% confidence interval of 1.59 to -1.75, finally an error of 24% and Linn coefficient of 0.78. USCOM vs echocardiography reported a bias (mean of the differences) of 1.11 with a standard deviation (precision) of 0.95 and a 95% confidence interval of 2.98 to -0.75, finally an error of 41% and Linn coefficient of 0.6.
Conclusions: Bioreactance is a promising technique for cardiac output measurement given its good agreement with echocardiography, in the other hand USCOM did not showed a satisfactory agreement with echocardiography, more studies are needed to verify the clinical usefulness of these different techniques.

REFERENCES

1. Ochagavia A, Baigorri F, Mesquida J, Ayuela JM, Ferrandiz A, García X, et al. Monitorización hemodinámica en el paciente crítico. Recomendaciones del Grupo de Trabajo de Cuidados Intensivos Cardiológicos y RCP de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias. Med Intensiva. 2014;38(3):154-169.

2. Kern JW, Shoemaker WC. Meta-analysis of hemodynamic optimization in high-risk patients. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(8):1686-1692.

3. Cholley BP, Vieillard-Baron A, Mebazaa A. Echocardiography in the ICU: time for widespread use! Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(1):9-10.

4. Swan HJ, Ganz W, Forrester J, Marcus H, Diamond G, Chonette D. Catheterization of the heart in man with use of a flow-directed balloon-tipped catheter. N Engl J Med. 1970;283(9):447-451.

5. Connors AF Jr, Speroff T, Dawson NV, Thomas C, Harrell FE Jr, Wagner D, et al. The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT Investigators. JAMA. 1996;276(11):889-897.

6. Keren H, Burkhoff D, Squara P. Evaluation of a noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring system based on thoracic bioreactance. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2007;293(1):H583-H589.

7. American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force; American Society of Echocardiography; American Heart Association; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; Heart Failure Society of America; Heart Rhythm Society; et al. ACCF/ASE/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR 2011 Appropriate Use Criteria for Echocardiography. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Endorsed by the American College of Chest Physicians. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(9):1126-1166.

8. Thom O, Taylor DM, Wolfe RE, Cade J, Myles P, Krum H, et al. Comparison of a supra-sternal cardiac output monitor (USCOM) with the pulmonary artery catheter. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103(6):800-804.

9. Chand R, Mehta Y, Trehan N. Cardiac output estimation with a new Doppler device after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2006;20(3):315-319.

10. Abbas SM, Hill AG. Systematic review of the literature for the use of oesophageal Doppler monitor for fluid replacement in major abdominal surgery. Anaesthesia. 2008;63(1):44-51.

11. Corcoran T, Rhodes JE, Clarke S, Myles PS, Ho KM. Perioperative fluid management strategies in major surgery: a stratified meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2012;114(3):640-651.

12. Giglio M, Dalfino L, Puntillo F, Rubino G, Marucci M, Brienza N. Haemodynamic goal-directed therapy in cardiac and vascular surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012;15(5):878-887.

13. Critchley LA, Critchley JA. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput. 1999;15(2):85-91.

14. Chong SW, Peyton PJ. A meta-analysis of the accuracy and precision of the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM). Anaesthesia. 2012;67(11):1266-1271.

15. Gujjar AR, Muralidhar K, Banakal S, Gupta R, Sathyaprabha TN, Jairaj PS. Non-invasive cardiac output by transthoracic electrical bioimpedence in post-cardiac surgery patients: comparison with thermodilution method. J Clin Monit Comput. 2008;22(3):175-180.

16. Sharma V, Singh A, Kansara B, Karlekar A. Comparison of transthoracic electrical bioimpedance cardiac output measurement with thermodilution method in post coronary artery bypass graft patients. Ann Card Anaesth. 2011;14(2):104-110.