Cardiac output (CO) is a key determinant of major organ blood flow and solute delivery to drug eliminating organs. As such, CO assessment is a key covariate in understanding altered drug handling in the critically ill. Newer minimally-invasive devices are providing unique platforms for such an application, although comparison data are currently lacking. In this study we evaluated the Vigileo® (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) and USCOM® (USCOM Ltd, Sydney, NSW) devices in 62 critically ill patients requiring antibacterial therapy. The mean COVigileo and COUSCOM for the first paired measurements were 8.20±2.65 ***1/minute and 6.84±2.57 1/minute respectively (P P P P=0.066), although bias, precision and percentage error were similar in both subgroups. In 54 patients a second paired assessment was obtained at three hours. A weak, although significant correlation (r=0.377, P=0.005) was observed suggesting that gross trends over time were similar. In conclusion, our findings demonstrate poor agreement between these techniques suggesting that these devices are not simply interchangeable when assessing CO in a research or clinical setting.
VincentJ.L., RhodesA., PerelA., MartinG.S., Della RoccaG., ValletB.Clinical review: update on hemodynamic monitoring -a consensus of 16. Crit Care2011; 15: 229.
2.
Di GiantomassoD., MayC.N., BellomoR.Vital organ blood flow during hyperdynamic sepsis. Chest2003; 124: 1053–1059.
3.
RobertsJ.A., LipmanJ.Antibacterial dosing in intensive care: pharmacokinetics, degree of disease and pharmacodynamics of sepsis. Clin Pharmacokinet2006; 45: 755–773.
4.
BrownR., BabcockR., TalbertJ., GruenbergJ., CzurakC., CampbellM.Renal function in critically ill postoperative patients: sequential assessment of creatinine osmolar and free water clearance. Crit Care Med1980; 8: 68–72.
5.
MabieW.C., DiSessaT.G., CrockerL.G., SibaiB.M., ArheartK.L.A longitudinal study of cardiac output in normal human pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol1994; 170: 849–856.
6.
JinS.J., JungJ.Y., NohM.H., LeeS.H., LeeE.K., ChoiB.M.The population pharmacokinetics of fentanyl in patients undergoing living-donor liver transplantation. Clin Pharmacol Ther2011; 90: 423–431.
7.
LoiratP., RohanJ., BailletA., BeaufilsF., DavidR., ChapmanA.Increased glomerular filtration rate in patients with major burns and its effect on the pharmacokinetics of tobramycin. N Engl J Med1978; 299: 915–919.
8.
UdyA.A., PuttM.T., ShanmugathasanS., RobertsJ.A., LipmanJ.Augmented renal clearance in the Intensive Care Unit: an illustrative case series. Int J Antimicrob Agents2010; 35: 606–608.
9.
RobertsJ.A., KrugerP., PatersonD.L., LipmanJ.Antibiotic resistance - what's dosing got to do with it?Crit Care Med2008; 36: 2433–2440.
10.
ParrilloJ.E., ParkerM.M., NatansonC., SuffrediniA.F., DannerR.L., CunnionR.E.Septic shock in humans. Advances in the understanding of pathogenesis, cardiovascular dysfunction, and therapy. Ann Intern Med1990; 113: 227–242.
11.
DouglasA., UdyA.A., WallisS.C., JarrettP., StuartJ., Lassig-SmithM.Plasma and tissue pharmacokinetics of cefazolin in patients undergoing elective and semielective abdominal aortic aneurysm open repair surgery. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2011; 55: 5238–5242.
12.
HosteE.A.J., DamenJ., VanholderR.C., LameireN.H., DelangheJ.R., Van den HauweK.Assessment of renal function in recently admitted critically ill patients with normal serum creatinine. Nephrol Dial Transplant2005; 20: 747–753.
13.
MartinJ.H., FayM.F., UdyA., RobertsJ., KirkpatrickC., UngererJ.Pitfalls of using estimations of glomerular filtration rate in an intensive care population. Intern Med J2011; 41: 537–543.
14.
VincentJ.L.So we use less pulmonary artery catheters -but why?Crit Care Med2011; 39: 1820–1822.
RobertsJ.A., RobertsM.S., SemarkA., UdyA.A., KirkpatrickC.M., PatersonD.L.Antibiotic dosing in the ‘at risk’ critically ill patient: Linking pathophysiology with pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics in sepsis and trauma patients. BMC Anesthesiol2011; 11: 3.
17.
BlandJ.M., AltmanD.G.Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1986; 1: 307–310.
18.
CritchleyL.A., CritchleyJ.A.A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput1999; 15: 85–91.
19.
ConchaM.R., MertzV.F., CortinezL.I., GonzalezK.A., ButteJ.M.Pulse contour analysis and transesophageal echocardio-graphy: a comparison of measurements of cardiac output during laparoscopic colon surgery. Anesth Analg2009; 109: 114–118.
20.
KusakaY., YoshitaniK., IrieT., InatomiY., ShinzawaM., OhnishiY.Clinical comparison of an echocardiograph-derived versus pulse counter-derived cardiac output measurement in abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2012; 26: 223–226.
21.
MengL., TranN.P., AlexanderB.S., LaningK., ChenG., KainZ.N.The impact of phenylephrine, ephedrine, and increased preload on third-generation Vigileo-FloTrac and esophageal doppler cardiac output measurements. Anesth Analg2011; 113: 751–757.
22.
McLeanA.S., HuangS.J., KotM., RajamaniA., HoylingL.Comparison of cardiac output measurements in critically ill patients: FloTrac/Vigileo vs transthoracic Doppler echocardiography. Anaesth Intensive Care2011; 39: 590–598.
23.
Van den OeverH.L.A., MurphyE.J., Christie-TaylorG.A.USCOM (Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitors) lacks agreement with thermodilution cardiac output and transoesophageal echocardiography valve measurements. Anaesth Intensive Care2007; 35: 903–910.
24.
BoyleM., SteelL., FlynnG.M., MurgoM., NicholsonL., O'BrienM.Assessment of the clinical utility of an ultrasonic monitor of cardiac output (the USCOM) and agreement with thermodilution measurement. Crit Care Resusc2009; 11: 198–203.
25.
ThomO., TaylorD.M., WolfeR.E., CadeJ., MylesP., KrumH.Comparison of a supra-sternal cardiac output monitor (USCOM) with the pulmonary artery catheter. Br J Anaesth2009; 103: 800–804.
26.
MayerJ., BoldtJ., PolandR., PetersonA., ManeckeGRJr.Continuous arterial pressure waveform-based cardiac output using the FloTrac/Vigileo: a review and meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2009; 23: 401–406.
27.
MayerJ., BoldtJ., WolfM.W., LangJ., SuttnerS.Cardiac output derived from arterial pressure waveform analysis in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: validity of a second generation device. Anesth Analg2008; 106: 867–872.
28.
ZimmermannA., KufnerC., HofbauerS., SteinwendnerJ., HitzlW., FritschG.The accuracy of the Vigileo/FloTrac continuous cardiac output monitor. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2008; 22: 388–393.
29.
ZimmermannA., SteinwendnerJ., HofbauerS., KirnbauerM., SchneiderJ., MoserL.The accuracy of the Vigileo/FloTrac system has been improved - follow-up after a software update: a blinded comparative study of 30 cardiosurgical patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2009; 23: 929–931.
30.
LorsomradeeS., LorsomradeeS., CromheeckeS., De HertS.G.Uncalibrated arterial pulse contour analysis versus continuous thermodilution technique: effects of alterations in arterial waveform. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2007; 21: 636–643.
31.
ManeckeG.R.Edwards FloTrac sensor and Vigileo monitor: easy, accurate, reliable cardiac output assessment using the arterial pulse wave. Expert Rev Med Devices2005; 2: 523–527.
32.
de WaalE.E.C., KalkmanC.J., RexS., BuhreW.F.Validation of a new arterial pulse contour-based cardiac output device. Crit Care Med2007; 35: 1904–1909.
33.
McGeeW.T., HorswellJ.L., CalderonJ., JanvierG., Van SeverenT., Van den BergheG.Validation of a continuous, arterial pressure-based cardiac output measurement: a multicenter, prospective clinical trial. Crit Care2007; 11: R105.
34.
WienerR.S., WelchH.G.Trends in the use of the pulmonary artery catheter in the United States, 1993-2004. JAMA2007; 298: 423–429.
