Hybrid Measurement to Achieve Satisfactory Precision in Perioperative Cardiac Output Monitoring

Abstract

Advanced haemodynamic monitoring employing minimally invasive cardiac output measurement may lead to significant improvements in patient outcomes in major surgery. However, the precision (scatter) of measurement of available generic technologies has been shown to be unsatisfactory with percentage error of agreement with bolus thermodilution (% error) of 40% to 50%. Simultaneous measurement and averaging by two or more technologies may reduce random measurement scatter and improve precision. This concept, called the hybrid method, was tested by comparing accuracy and precision of measurement relative to bolus thermodilution using combinations of three component methods. Thirty patients scheduled for either elective cardiac surgery or liver transplantation were studied. Agreement with simultaneous bolus thermodilution of hybrid combinations of continuous thermodilution (Qt_CCO) or Vigeleo^TM/FloTrac^TM pulse contour measurement (Qt_FT) with pulmonary Capnotracking (Qt_CO2) was assessed pre- and post-cardiopulmonary bypass or pre- and post-reperfusion of the donor liver and compared with that of the component methods alone. Hybridisation of Qt_CO2 (% error 42.2) and Qt_CCO (% error 51.3) achieved significantly better precision (% error 31.3) than the component methods (P=0.0004) and (P=0.0195). Due to poor inherent precision of Qt_FT (% error 82.8), hybrid combination of Qt_FT with Qt_CO2 did not result in better precision than Qt_CO2 alone. Hybrid measurement can approach a 30% error, which is recommended as the upper limit for acceptability. This is a practical option where at least one component method, such as Capnotracking, is automated and does not increase the cost or complexity of the measurement process.

Keywords

cardiac output measurement Capnotrack thermodilution hybrid

References

Miller

T.E.

, Roche

A.M.

, Gan

T.J.

Poor adoption of hemody-namic optimization during major surgery: are we practicing substandard care?

Anesth Analg 2011; 112: 1274–1276.

Funk

D.J.

, Moretti

E.W.

, Gan

T.J.

Minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring in the perioperative setting. Anesth Analg 2009; 108: 887–987.

Chappell

, Jacob

, Hofmann-Kiefer

, Conzen

, Rehm

A rational approach to perioperative fluid management. Anesthesiology 2008; 109: 723–740.

Peyton

P.J.

, Chong

S.W.

Minimally invasive measurement of cardiac output during surgery and critical care: a meta-analysis of accuracy and precision. Anesthesiology 2010; 113: 1220–1235.

Critchley

L.A.

, Critchley

J.A.

A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput 1999; 15: 85–91.

Peyton

P.J.

, Chong

S.W.

Minimally invasive measurement of cardiac output during surgery and critical care: a meta-analysis of accuracy and precision: erratum. Anesthesiology 2012; 116: 972–973.

Peyton

P.J.

Continuous minimally invasive peri-operative monitoring of cardiac output by pulmonary capnotracking: comparison with thermodilution and transesophageal echocardiogra-phy. J Clin Monit Comput 2012; 26: 121–132.

Peyton

P.J.

, Thompson

, Junor

Non-invasive automated measurement of cardiac output during stable cardiac surgery using a fully integrated differential CO(2) Fick method. J Clin Monit Comput 2008; 22: 285–292.

Gedeon

, Forslund

, Hedenstierna

, Romano

A new method for noninvasive bedside determination of pulmonary blood flow. Med Biol Eng Comput 1980; 18: 411–418.

10.

Capek

J.M.

, Roy

R.J.

Noninvasive measurement of cardiac output using partial CO2 rebreathing. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1988; 35: 653–661.

11.

Bland

J.M.

, Altman

D.G.

Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–310.

12.

Streiner

D.L.

, Norman

G.R.

Health Measurement Scales. A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press; 1995. p. 104–126.

13.

Levene

Robust tests for equality of variances. In: Olkin

, Ghurye

S.G.

, Hoeffding

, Madow

W.G.

, and Mann

H.B.

(eds). Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling, 1st ed. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford University Press; 1960. p. 278–292.

14.

Botero

, Kirby

, Lobato

E.B.

, Staples

E.D.

, Gravenstein

Measurement of cardiac output before and after cardiopulmo-nary bypass: Comparison among aortic transit-time ultrasound, thermodilution, and noninvasive partial CO2 rebreathing. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2004; 18: 563–572.

15.

Myles

P.S.

, McRae

R.J.

Relation between oxygen consumption and oxygen delivery after cardiac surgery: beware mathematical coupling. Anesth Analg 1995; 81: 430–431.

16.

Stetz

C.W.

, Miller

R.G.

, Kelly

G.E.

, Raffin

T.A.

Reliability of the thermodilution method in the determination of cardiac output in clinical practice. Am Rev Respir Dis 1982; 126: 1001–1004.

17.

Bajorat

, Hofmockel

, Vagts

D.A.

, Janda

, Pohl

, Beck

Comparison of invasive and less-invasive techniques of cardiac output measurement under different haemodynamic conditions in a pig model. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2006; 23: 23–30.

18.

Feldman

J.M.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? The role of patient monitors in medical decision making. Anesth Analg 2009; 108: 707–10.

19.

Critchley

L.H.

Bias and precision statistics: should we still adhere to the 30% benchmark for cardiac output monitor validation studies?

Anesthesiology 2011; 114: 1245.

20.

Yang

X.X.

, Critchley

L.A.

, Rowlands

D.K.

, Fang

, Huang

Systematic error of cardiac output measured by bolus ther-modilution with a pulmonary artery catheter compared with that measured by an aortic flow probe in a pig model. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2013; 27: 1133–1139.