open access

Vol 49, No 3 (2017)
Original and clinical articles
Published online: 2017-08-12
Submitted: 2016-12-17
Accepted: 2017-05-22
Get Citation

Comparison of the ability of esCCO and Volume View to measure trends in cardiac output in patients undergoing cardiac surgery

Stephanie Dache, Nicolas Van Rompaey, Alexandre Joosten, Olivier Desebbe, Sarah Saxena, Frederic Vanden Eynden, Caroline Van Aelbrouck, Isabelle Huybrechts, Luc Van Obbergh, Luc Barvais
DOI: 10.5603/AIT.2017.0043
·
Pubmed: 28803439
·
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2017;49(3):175-180.

open access

Vol 49, No 3 (2017)
Original and clinical articles
Published online: 2017-08-12
Submitted: 2016-12-17
Accepted: 2017-05-22

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiac output (CO) is a physiological variable that should be monitored during cardiac surgery. The purpose of this study was to assess the trending ability of two CO monitors, esCCO (Nihon Kohden™, Tokyo, Japan) and Volume View (VV) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA).

METHODS: A total of 19 patients were included in the study. Before cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), CO was measured simultaneously using both esCCO and VV devices before and after three CO-modifying manoeuvres (passive leg raise [PLR], the end expiratory occlusion test [EEOT] and positive end expiratory pressure [PEEP] at 10 cm H2O). Five CO values for esCCO and three for VV were averaged and compared during a one-minute period of time before and after each manoeuvre.

RESULTS: A total of 114 paired readings were collected. Median CO values were 4.3 L min-1 (IQR: 3.8; 5.2) and 3.8 L min-1 (IQR: 3.5; 4.5) for esCCO and VV, respectively. The precision error was 1.4% (95% CI:1.0–1.7) for esCCO and 2.2% (95% CI: 1.8–2.7) for VV. The bias between esCCO and VV values was normally distributed (P = 0.0596). Between esCCO and VV, the mean bias was +0.6 L min-1 with a Limit of Agreement (LOA) of –1.8 L min-1 and +3.0 L min-1. The concordance rate was 43% (95% CI: 29–58) between esCCO and VV.

CONCLUSION: Both single and trended measurements of CO using esCCO and VV were not in agreement. This large discrepancy leads one to the conclusion that any outcome study conducted with one of these devices cannot be applied to the other.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiac output (CO) is a physiological variable that should be monitored during cardiac surgery. The purpose of this study was to assess the trending ability of two CO monitors, esCCO (Nihon Kohden™, Tokyo, Japan) and Volume View (VV) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA).

METHODS: A total of 19 patients were included in the study. Before cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), CO was measured simultaneously using both esCCO and VV devices before and after three CO-modifying manoeuvres (passive leg raise [PLR], the end expiratory occlusion test [EEOT] and positive end expiratory pressure [PEEP] at 10 cm H2O). Five CO values for esCCO and three for VV were averaged and compared during a one-minute period of time before and after each manoeuvre.

RESULTS: A total of 114 paired readings were collected. Median CO values were 4.3 L min-1 (IQR: 3.8; 5.2) and 3.8 L min-1 (IQR: 3.5; 4.5) for esCCO and VV, respectively. The precision error was 1.4% (95% CI:1.0–1.7) for esCCO and 2.2% (95% CI: 1.8–2.7) for VV. The bias between esCCO and VV values was normally distributed (P = 0.0596). Between esCCO and VV, the mean bias was +0.6 L min-1 with a Limit of Agreement (LOA) of –1.8 L min-1 and +3.0 L min-1. The concordance rate was 43% (95% CI: 29–58) between esCCO and VV.

CONCLUSION: Both single and trended measurements of CO using esCCO and VV were not in agreement. This large discrepancy leads one to the conclusion that any outcome study conducted with one of these devices cannot be applied to the other.

Get Citation

Keywords

non-invasive monitoring, cardiac output, cardiac surgery, general anaesthesia

About this article
Title

Comparison of the ability of esCCO and Volume View to measure trends in cardiac output in patients undergoing cardiac surgery

Journal

Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy

Issue

Vol 49, No 3 (2017)

Pages

175-180

Published online

2017-08-12

DOI

10.5603/AIT.2017.0043

Pubmed

28803439

Bibliographic record

Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2017;49(3):175-180.

Keywords

non-invasive monitoring
cardiac output
cardiac surgery
general anaesthesia

Authors

Stephanie Dache
Nicolas Van Rompaey
Alexandre Joosten
Olivier Desebbe
Sarah Saxena
Frederic Vanden Eynden
Caroline Van Aelbrouck
Isabelle Huybrechts
Luc Van Obbergh
Luc Barvais

References (25)
  1. Pearse RM, Harrison DA, MacDonald N, et al. OPTIMISE Study Group. Effect of a perioperative, cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm on outcomes following major gastrointestinal surgery: a randomized clinical trial and systematic review. JAMA. 2014; 311(21): 2181–2190.
  2. Harvey S, Harrison DA, Singer M, et al. PAC-Man study collaboration. Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005; 366(9484): 472–477.
  3. Vincent JL. So we use less pulmonary artery catheters--but why? Crit Care Med. 2011; 39(7): 1820–1822.
  4. Sugo Y, Sakai T, Terao M, et al. A novel continuous cardiac output monitor based on pulse wave transit time. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010; 2010: 2853–2856.
  5. Ishihara H, Okawa H, Tanabe K, et al. A new non-invasive continuous cardiac output trend solely utilizing routine cardiovascular monitors. J Clin Monit Comput. 2004; 18(5-6): 313–320.
  6. Sugo Y, Sakai T, Terao M, et al. The comparison of a novel continuous cardiac output monitor based on pulse wave transit time and echo Doppler during exercise. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012; 2012: 236–239.
  7. Bendjelid K, Marx G, Kiefer N, et al. Performance of a new pulse contour method for continuous cardiac output monitoring: validation in critically ill patients. Br J Anaesth. 2013; 111(4): 573–579.
  8. Bataille B, Bertuit M, Mora M, et al. Comparison of esCCO and transthoracic echocardiography for non-invasive measurement of cardiac output intensive care. Br J Anaesth. 2012; 109(6): 879–886.
  9. Tsutsui M, Araki Y, Masui K, et al. Pulse wave transit time measurements of cardiac output in patients undergoing partial hepatectomy: a comparison of the esCCO system with thermodilution. Anesth Analg. 2013; 117(6): 1307–1312.
  10. Yamada T, Tsutsui M, Sugo Y, et al. Multicenter study verifying a method of noninvasive continuous cardiac output measurement using pulse wave transit time: a comparison with intermittent bolus thermodilution cardiac output. Anesth Analg. 2012; 115(1): 82–87.
  11. Monnet X, Rienzo M, Osman D, et al. Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2006; 34(5): 1402–1407.
  12. Cecconi M, Dawson D, Grounds RM, et al. Lithium dilution cardiac output measurement in the critically ill patient: determination of precision of the technique. Intensive Care Med. 2009; 35(3): 498–504.
  13. Cecconi M, Rhodes A, Poloniecki J, et al. Bench-to-bedside review: the importance of the precision of the reference technique in method comparison studies--with specific reference to the measurement of cardiac output. Crit Care. 2009; 13(1): 201.
  14. Bubenek-Turconi SI, Craciun M, Miclea I, et al. Noninvasive continuous cardiac output by the Nexfin before and after preload-modifying maneuvers: a comparison with intermittent thermodilution cardiac output. Anesth Analg. 2013; 117(2): 366–372.
  15. Cummings SR, Black D. Should perimenopausal women be screened for osteoporosis? Ann Intern Med. 1986; 104(6): 817–823.
  16. Glüer CC. Monitoring skeletal changes by radiological techniques. J Bone Miner Res. 1999; 14(11): 1952–1962.
  17. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476): 307–310.
  18. Bland JM, Altman DG. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat. 2007; 17(4): 571–582.
  19. Saugel B, Grothe O, Wagner JY. Tracking Changes in Cardiac Output: Statistical Considerations on the 4-Quadrant Plot and the Polar Plot Methodology. Anesth Analg. 2015; 121(2): 514–524.
  20. Perrino A, O'connor T, Luther M. Transtracheal Doppler Cardiac Output Monitoring. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 1994; 78(6): 1060???1066.
  21. Vallet B, Blanloeil Y, Cholley B, et al. Socie´te ´ franc ¸aise d’anesthe´sie et de re´animation, Socie´te´ franc¸aise d’anesthe´sie et de re´animation. [Guidelines for perioperative haemodynamic optimization. Socie´te´ franc¸aise d’anesthe´sie et de re´animation]. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2013; 32(6): 454–462.
  22. Critchley LA, Yang XX, Lee A. Assessment of trending ability of cardiac output monitors by polar plot methodology. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2011; 25(3): 536–546.
  23. Biais M, Berthezène R, Petit L, et al. Ability of esCCO to track changes in cardiac output. Br J Anaesth. 2015; 115(3): 403–410.
  24. Thonnerieux M, Alexander B, Binet C, et al. The Ability of esCCO and ECOM Monitors to Measure Trends in Cardiac Output During Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver After Cardiac Surgery: A Comparison with the Pulmonary Thermodilution Method. Anesth Analg. 2015; 121(2): 383–391.
  25. Lilot M, Ehrenfeld JM, Lee C, et al. Variability in practice and factors predictive of total crystalloid administration during abdominal surgery: retrospective two-centre analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2015; 114(5): 767–776.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

VM Media sp. z o.o. VM Group sp.k., Grupa Via Medica, Świętokrzyska 73 St., 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl