Systematic review of cardiac output measurements by echocardiography vs. thermodilution: the techniques are not interchangeable
- 3.5k Downloads
Echocardiography is frequently used in the hemodynamic evaluation of critically ill patients, but inaccurate measurements may lead to wrong clinical decisions. The aim of our systematic review was to investigate the interchangeability of echocardiography with thermodilution technique in measuring cardiac output and its changes.
In August 2015 we systematically searched electronic databases and included studies investigating the echocardiographic measurement of cardiac output compared with thermodilution technique using the Bland–Altman method. Two authors independently reviewed the studies and extracted data on type of measurements, clinical setting and characteristics, and those of the Bland–Altman and trending ability analyses.
We identified 13,834 citations and included 24 studies in the final analysis. The median number of participants was 32 (range 8–65). Most of the studies assessed left-sided heart structures and the majority had small bias, wide limits of agreement, and high percentage error between echocardiography and thermodilution. In only two of the 24 studies the precision of each technique (echocardiography and thermodilution) was assessed before comparing them. In the single study evaluating trending ability using valid methodology, agreement was observed between echocardiography and thermodilution in detecting the directional changes in cardiac output, but the magnitude of changes varied considerably.
The majority of studies comparing echocardiography with thermodilution were difficult to interpret, but current evidence does not support interchangeability between these techniques in measuring cardiac output. The techniques may be interchangeable in tracking directional changes in cardiac output, but this has to be confirmed in large high-quality studies.
KeywordsCardiac output Critical care Echocardiography Hemodynamic monitoring Intensive care unit Thermodilution technique
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
None of the authors have potential conflicts of interest.
Department funds only.
- 13.Quinones MA, Otto CM, Stoddard M, Waggoner A, Zoghbi WA (2002) Recommendations for quantification of Doppler echocardiography: a report from the Doppler Quantification Task Force of the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 15:167–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Berthelsen PG, Nilsson LB (2006) Researcher bias and generalization of results in bias and limits of agreement analyses: a commentary based on the review of 50 Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica papers using the Altman–Bland approach. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 50:1111–1113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, Beale R, Bakker J, Hofer C, Jaeschke R, Mebazaa A, Pinsky MR, Teboul JL, Vincent JL, Rhodes A (2014) Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 40:1795–1815CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 18.Hahn RT, Abraham T, Adams MS, Bruce CJ, Glas KE, Lang RM, Reeves ST, Shanewise JS, Siu SC, Stewart W, Picard MH (2014) Guidelines for performing a comprehensive transesophageal echocardiographic examination: recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists. Anesth Analg 118:21–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.Hansen KL, Moller-Sorensen H, Kjaergaard J, Jensen, MB, Lund, JT, Pedersen MM, Olesen JB, Jensen JA, Nielsen MB (2015) Vector flow imaging compared with conventional Doppler ultrasound and thermodilution for estimation of blood flow in the ascending aorta. Ultrason Imaging. doi: 10.1177/0161734615620137
- 49.Vincent JL, Rhodes A, Perel A, Martin GS, Della Rocca G, Vallet B, Pinsky MR, Hofer CK, Teboul JL, de Boode WP, Scolletta S, Vieillard-Baron A, De Backer D, Walley KR, Maggiorini M, Singer M (2011) Clinical review: update on hemodynamic monitoring—a consensus of 16. Crit Care 15:229CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 60.Cecconi M, Rhodes A, Poloniecki J, Della Rocca G, Grounds RM (2009) Bench-to-bedside review: the importance of the precision of the reference technique in method comparison studies—with specific reference to the measurement of cardiac output. Crit Care 13:201CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar