Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does using two Doppler cardiac output monitors in tandem provide a reliable trend line of changes for validation studies?

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 14 October 2015

Abstract

The demise of the pulmonary artery catheter as a gold standard in cardiac output measurement has created the need for new standard. Doppler cardiac output can be measured suprasternally (USCOM) and via the oesophagus (CardioQ). Use in tandem they may provide a reliable trend line of cardiac output changes against which new technologies can be assessed. Data from three similar clinical studies was pooled. Simultaneous USCOM and CardioQ readings, 13 (7–27), were performed every 15–30 min intraoperatively. Within individual patient regression analysis was performed. Data was normalized, CardioQ against USCOM, to eliminate the systematic error component following calibration. Bland–Altman and trend, concordance and polar analysis, were performed on the grouped data. Cardiac output was indexed (CI) to BSA. Data from 53 patients, aged 59 (26–81) years, scheduled for major surgery were included. Within-individual mean (SD) CI was 3.4 (0.6) L min−1 m−2. Correlation was good to excellent in 83 % of cases, R2 > 0.80, and reasonable in 96 %, R2 > 0.60. Percentage error was 38 %, and decreased to 14 % with normalization. The estimated 95 % precision for a single Doppler reading was ±10 %. Concordance rate was 96.6 % (confidence intervals 94.7–99.5 %) and above the >92 % threshold for good trending ability. Polar analysis also confirmed good trending ability. The regression line between Doppler methods was offset with a slope of 0.9, thus CardioQ CI readings increased relative to USCOM. Both Doppler methods trended cardiac output reliably. Used in tandem they provide a new standard to assess cardiac output trending.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vincent JL, Rhodes A, Perel A, et al. Clinical review: update on hemodynamic monitoring—a consensus of 16. Crit Care. 2011;15:229.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Peyton PJ, Chong SW. Minimally invasive measurement of cardiac output during surgery and critical care: a meta-analysis of accuracy and precision. Anesthesiology. 2010;113:1220–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Michard F. Thinking outside the (cardiac output) box. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:1361–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Preiss David, Fisher Joseph. A measure of confidence in Bland–Altman Analysis for the interchangeability of two methods of measurement. J Clin Monit Comput. 2008;22:257–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Olofsen E, Dahan A, Borsboom G, Drummond G. Improvements in the application and reporting of advanced Bland–Altman methods of comparison. J Clin Monit Comput. 2015;29(1):127–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Critchley LA, Lee A, Ho AM. A critical review of the ability of continuous cardiac output monitors to measure trends in cardiac output. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:1180–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chong SW, Peyton PJ. A meta-analysis of the accuracy and precision of the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM). Anaesthesia. 2012;67:1266–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dark PM, Singer M. The validity of trans-esophageal Doppler ultrasonography as a measure of cardiac output in critically ill adults. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:2060–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Critchley LA, Huang L, Zhang J. Continuous cardiac output monitoring: what do validation studies tell us? Curr Anesthesiol Rep. 2014;4:242–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Huang L, Critchley LA. An assessment of two Doppler-based monitors to track cardiac output changes in anaesthetised patients undergoing major surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2014;42:631–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Diaper J, Ellenberger C, Villiger Y, Robert J, Inan C, Tschopp JM, Licker M. Comparison of cardiac output as assessed by transesophageal echo-Doppler and transpulmonary thermodilution in patients undergoing thoracic surgery. J Clin Anesth. 2010;22:97–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Coats AJS. Doppler ultrasonic measurement of cardiac output: reproducibility and validation. Eur Heart J. 1990;11(Suppl I):49–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lewis JF, Kuo LC, Nelson JG, Liamcher MC, Quinones MA. Pulsed Doppler echocardiographic determination of stroke volume and cardiac output: clinical validation of two new methods using the apical window. Circulation. 1984;70:425–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Huang L, Critchley LA, Zhang J. Major upper abdominal surgery alters the calibration of BioReactance cardiac output readings, the NICOM, when comparisons are made against suprasternal and esophageal Doppler intraoperatively. Anesth Analg 2015; (in press).

  16. Critchley LA. Differences between cardio-q and uscom doppler cardiac output readings in high risk surgery patients. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108(Suppl 2):113–114.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cattermole G, Leung P, Tang C, Smith B, Graham C, Rainer T. A new method to score the quality of USCOM scans. Hong Kong J Emerg Med. 2009;16:288.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Critchley LA, Huang L. USCOM-window to the circulation: utility of supra-sternal Doppler in an elderly anaesthetized patient for a robotic cystectomy. J Clin Monit Comput. 2014;28:83–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bland JM, Altman DG. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17:571–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Perrino AC Jr, O’Connor T, Luther M. Transtracheal Doppler cardiac output monitoring: comparison to thermodilution during noncardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 1994;78:1060–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Axiak Flammer SM, Critchley LA, Weber A, Pirbodaghi T, Brinks H, Vandenberghe S. Reliability of lithium dilution cardiac output in anaesthetized sheep. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111:833–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Critchley LA, Yang XX, Lee A. Assessment of trending ability of cardiac output monitors by polar plot methodology. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2011;25:536–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Critchley LA, Peng ZY, Fok BS, Lee A, Phillips RA. Testing the reliability of a new ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, the USCOM, by using aortic flowprobes in anesthetized dogs. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:748–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Phillips RA, Hood SG, Jacobson BM, West MJ, Wan L, May CN. Pulmonary Artery Catheter (PAC) Accuracy and Efficacy compared with flow probe and transcutaneous Doppler (USCOM): an ovine cardiac output validation. Crit Care Res Pract 2012. doi:10.1155/2012/621496.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Singer M, Clarke J, Bennett ED. Continuous hemodynamic monitoring by esophageal Doppler. Crit Care Med. 1989;17(5):447–52

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Valtier B, Cholley BP, Belot JP, de la Coussaye JE, Mateo J, Payen DM. Noninvasive monitoring of cardiac output in critically ill patients using transesophageal Doppler. Am J Res Crit Care Med. 1998;158:77–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Huang L, Critchley LA. Study to determine the repeatability of supra-sternal Doppler (ultrasound cardiac output monitor) during general anaesthesia: effects of scan quality, flow volume, and increasing age. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111:907–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Huang L, Critchley LA, Lok RL, Liu Y. Correlation between supra-sternal Doppler cardiac output (USCOM) measurements and chest radiological features. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:1156–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. O’Rourke MF, Hashimoto J Mechanical factors in arterial aging: a clinical perspective. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 50:1–13. Doppler. Crit Care Med 1989; 17:447–52.

  30. Gan TJ, Soppitt A, Maroof M, et al. Goal-directed intraoperative fluid administration reduces length of hospital stay after major surgery. Anesthesiology. 2002;97:820–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Noblett SE, Snowden CP, Shenton BK, Horgan AF. Randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of Doppler-optimized fluid management on outcome after elective colorectal resection. Br J Surg. 2006;93:1069–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Marik PE. Obituary: pulmonary artery catheter 1970 to 2013. Ann Intensive Care. 2013;3:38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Schlöglhofer T, Gilly H, Schima H. Semi-invasive measurement of cardiac output based on pulse contour: a review and analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2014;61:452–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by The Chinese University of Hong Kong through two Direct Grants for Research: Study (2) 2011/12 Project Code 2041689 and study (3) 2012/13 Project Code 4054002.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anaesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China

    Huang Li

  2. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong, SAR

    Lester A. H. Critchley & Jie Zhang

Authors
  1. Huang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lester A. H. Critchley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jie Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jie Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-015-9775-7.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, H., Critchley, L.A.H. & Zhang, J. Does using two Doppler cardiac output monitors in tandem provide a reliable trend line of changes for validation studies?. J Clin Monit Comput 30, 559–567 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-015-9753-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-015-9753-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation