Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:02:21.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accuracy of cardiac output measurements with pulse contour analysis (PulseCO™) and Doppler echocardiography during off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

C. Missant ,
S. Rex  and
P. F. Wouters
C. Missant*
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, University Hospitals, Department of Acute Medical Sciences – Anaesthesiology, U. Z. Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium
S. Rex
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, University Hospitals, Department of Acute Medical Sciences – Anaesthesiology, U. Z. Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen, Department of Anaesthesiology, Germany
P. F. Wouters*
Affiliation:
University Hospitals Ghent, Department of Anesthesiology, Ghent, Belgium
*
Correspondence to: Patrick F. Wouters, Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospitals Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +32 9 332 3281; Fax: +32 9 332 4987
Get access

Summary

Background and objective

During off-pump coronary bypass grafting, surgical manipulation and dislocation of the heart may cause cardiovascular instability. Monitoring of cardiac output facilitates intraoperative haemodynamic management but pulmonary artery catheters are often considered too invasive. Pulse contour analysis and transoesophageal echocardiography could serve as alternatives, but there is controversy about their accuracies. We validated pulse contour analysis using a standard radial arterial catheter (PulseCO™) and aortic Doppler flowmetry with transoesophageal echocardiography in patients undergoing off-pump coronary bypass surgery. Pulmonary arterial thermodilution served as the reference technique.

Methods

In 20 patients undergoing off-pump coronary bypass, cardiac output was measured with bolus thermodilution (COTD), pulse contour analysis (COPC), and transoesophageal echocardiography (COecho) at fixed time intervals during the procedure. Data were compared using linear regression and Bland–Altman analysis. At the end of the procedure, dobutamine was infused at a rate of 2.5 μg kg−1 min−1 in six patients to study the agreement between methods in quantifying changes in cardiac output.

Results

Comparison between COPC and COTD showed a bias ± limits of agreement of −0.03 ± 1.30 L min−1 (mean error 29%). Doppler echocardiography was not always feasible when the heart was displaced from the oesophagus and had lower accuracy: bias ± limits of agreement vs. COTD was 0.45 ± 1.93 (mean error 43%). Increases in cardiac output induced by dobutamine were well quantified both by pulse contour analysis (COPC = 0.76 × COTD + 0.58; r2 = 0.65) and Doppler, although the latter tended to overestimate these changes (COecho = 1.58 × COTD − 0.13; r2 = 0.53).

Conclusions

Calibrated pulse contour analysis using the PulseCO system is an acceptable technique to measure cardiac output non-invasively in off-pump coronary bypass patients. Doppler echocardiography performs less well and is not always feasible with transoesophageal echocardiography when the heart is displaced.

Keywords

SURGERY CARDIACCORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFTINGCORONARY ARTERY BYPASS OFF-PUMPCARDIAC OUTPUTPHYSIOLOGIC MONITORING
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , March 2008 , pp. 243 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © European Society of Anaesthesiology 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Do, QB, Goyer, C, Chavanon, O, Couture, P, Denault, A, Cartier, R. Hemodynamic changes during off-pump CABG surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2002; 21: 385–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.JrConnors, AF, Speroff, T, Dawson, NV et al. . The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT Investigators. JAMA 1996; 276: 889–897.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Sandham, JD, Hull, RD, Brant, RF et al. . A randomized, controlled trial of the use of pulmonary-artery catheters in high-risk surgical patients. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 5–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Harvey, S, Harrison, DA, Singer, M et al. . 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: 472–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Resano, FG, Kapetanakis, EI, Hill, PC, Haile, E, Corso, PJ. Clinical outcomes of low-risk patients undergoing beating-heart surgery with or without pulmonary artery catheterization. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2006; 20: 300–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Djaiani, G, Karski, J, Yudin, M et al. . Clinical outcomes in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery with and without utilization of pulmonary artery catheter-generated data. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2006; 20: 307–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Buhre, W, Weyland, A, Kazmaier, S et al. . Comparison of cardiac output assessed by pulse-contour analysis and thermodilution in patients undergoing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 1999; 13: 437–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Wouters, PF, Quaghebeur, B, Sergeant, P et al. . Cardiac output monitoring using a brachial arterial catheter during off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2005; 19: 160–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Hullett, B, Gibbs, N, Weightman, W, Thackray, M, Newman, M. A comparison of CardioQ and thermodilution cardiac output during off-pump coronary artery surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2003; 17: 728–732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Bettex, DA, Hinselmann, V, Hellermann, JP, Janni, R, Schmid, ER. Transoesophageal echocardiography is unreliable for cardiac output assessment after cardiac surgery compared with thermodilution. Anaesthesia 2004; 59: 1184–1192S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Katz, WE, Gasior, TA, Quinlan, JJ, 3rdGorcsan, J. Transgastric continuous-wave Doppler to determine cardiac output. Am J Cardiol 1993; 71: 853–857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Darmon, PL, Hillel, Z, Mogtader, A, Mindich, B, Thys, D. Cardiac output by transesophageal echocardiography using continuous-wave Doppler across the aortic valve. Anesthesiology 1994; 80: 796–805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Bland, JM, Altman, DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.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: 85–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Su, NY, Huang, CJ, Tsai, P, Hsu, YW, Hung, YC, Cheng, CR. Cardiac output measurement during cardiac surgery: esophageal Doppler versus pulmonary artery catheter. Acta Anaesthesiol Sin 2002; 40: 127–133.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Bein, B, Worthmann, F, Tonner, PH et al. . Comparison of esophageal Doppler, pulse contour analysis, and real-time pulmonary artery thermodilution for the continuous measurement of cardiac output. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2004; 18: 185–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Halvorsen, PS, Espinoza, A, Lundblad, R et al. . Agreement between PiCCO pulse-contour analysis, pulmonal artery thermodilution and transthoracic thermodilution during off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2006; 50: 1050–1057.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Ostergaard, M, Nielsen, J, Rasmussen, JP, Berthelsen, PG. Cardiac output – pulse contour analysis vs. pulmonary artery thermodilution. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2006; 50: 1044–1049.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Kanazawa, M, Fukuyama, H, Kinefuchi, Y, Takiguchi, M, Suzuki, T. Relationship between aortic-to-radial arterial pressure gradient after cardiopulmonary bypass and changes in arterial elasticity. Anesthesiology 2003; 99: 48–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Yamashita, K, Nishiyama, T, Yokoyama, T, Abe, H, Manabe, M. Cardiac output by PulseCO is not interchangeable with thermodilution in patients undergoing OPCAB. Can J Anaesth 2005; 52: 530–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Stetz, CW, Miller, RG, Kelly, GE, Raffin, TA. Reliability of the thermodilution method in the determination of cardiac output in clinical practice. Am Rev Respir Dis 1982; 126: 1001–1004.Google ScholarPubMed
22.Estagnasie, P, Djedaini, K, Mier, L, Coste, F, Dreyfuss, D. Measurement of cardiac output by transesophageal echocardiography in mechanically ventilated patients. Comparison with thermodilution. Intensive Care Med 1997; 23: 753–759.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Linton, NW, Linton, RA. Estimation of changes in cardiac output from the arterial blood pressure waveform in the upper limb. Br J Anaesth 2001; 86: 486–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Grow, MP, Singh, A, Fleming, NW, Young, N, Watnik, M. Cardiac output monitoring during off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2004; 18: 43–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Linton, R, Band, D, O’Brien, T, Jonas, MM, Linton, NW. Lithium dilution cardiac output measurement: a comparison with thermodilution. Crit Care Med 1997; 25: 1796–1800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed