OPEN IN READ APP
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Validation of continuous thermodilution cardiac output in critically ill patients with analysis of systematic errors

D L Medin, D T Brown, R Wesley, R E Cunnion, F P Ognibene
Journal of Critical Care 1998, 13 (4): 184-9
9869545

PURPOSE: Bolus thermodilution cardiac output (BCO) measurements are affected by variations in injectate volume, rate, and temperature. These variations are eliminated when CO is measured by a continuous automated thermal technique (CCO). Further, CCO eliminates the need for fluid boluses, reduces contamination risk, requires no operator, and provides a continuous CO trend. We prospectively evaluated CCO versus BCO in a population of critically ill adults with low, normal, and high CO states. We sought to discern any systematic effects of temperature fluctuations or signal-to-noise-ratios (SNR) on disparities between BCO and CCO measurements and also sought to assess the relative cost effectiveness of the CCO system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pulmonary artery catheterizations were performed in a convenience sample of 20 patients over 6 months. BCO data were obtained using a standardized protocol. Three bolus injections of 5% dextrose were given when each CO was within 10% of the median before averaging; otherwise five boluses were given, with the high and low values eliminated before averaging. Injectates were administered randomly through the respiratory cycle and at 1-minute intervals. CCO measurements were recorded from a Vigilance monitor pre and post BCO measurements, yielding an average CCO value. Also recorded were pre- and post-core temperatures and SNR during the first CCO measurement. Cost data included estimates of operator time for BCO determinations as well as costs of Intellicath (Baxter-Edwards, Irvine, CA) pulmonary artery catheters, Vigilance (Baxter-Edwards, Irvine, CA) monitors, conventional catheters, and injectates.

RESULTS: Of the 20 patients, 15 were mechanically ventilated. A total of 306 paired CO values were obtained for analysis. CCO ranged from 2.5 to 14.4 L/min and BCO from 2.4 to 13.3 L/min. Absolute differences between CCO and BCO measurements increased with increasing CO, but percentage differences did not. Of the paired values, 77% were within 1 L/min of one another. Temperature instability and SNR independently had weak correlations with CCO/BCO disparities. The Vigilance system had a slightly higher net cost than conventional BCO, although no economical value was assigned to the clinical usefulness of continuous, as opposed to intermittent, CO monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS: Continuous CO is a reliable and cost-effective alternative to bolus thermodilution CO for critically ill patients in low, normal, and high CO states.

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Trending Papers

Available on the App Store

Available on the Play Store
Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
9869545
×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"