Advertisement

Journal of Anesthesia

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 387–393 | Cite as

Accuracy and trending ability of the fourth-generation FloTrac/Vigileo System™ in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery

  • Takuma Maeda
  • Kohshi Hattori
  • Miho Sumiyoshi
  • Hiroko Kanazawa
  • Yoshihiko Ohnishi
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The fourth-generation FloTrac/Vigileo™ improved its algorithm to follow changes in systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI). This revision may improve the accuracy and trending ability of CI even in patients who undergo abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery which cause drastic change of SVRI by aortic clamping. The purpose of this study is to elucidate the accuracy and trending ability of the fourth-generation FloTrac/Vigileo™ in patients with AAA surgery by comparing the FloTrac/Vigileo™-derived CI (CIFT) with that measured by three-dimensional echocardiography (CI3D).

Methods

Twenty-six patients undergoing elective AAA surgery were included in this study. CIFT and CI3D were determined simultaneously in eight points including before and after aortic clamp. We used CI3D as the reference method.

Results

In the Bland–Altman analysis, CIFT had a wide limit of agreement with CI3D showing a percentage error of 46.7%. Subgroup analysis showed that the percentage error between CO3D and COFT was 56.3% in patients with cardiac index < 2.5 L/min/m2 and 28.4% in patients with cardiac index ≥ 2.5 L/min/m2. SVRI was significantly higher in patients with cardiac index < 2.5 L/min/m2 (1703 ± 330 vs. 2757 ± 798; p < 0.001). The tracking ability of fourth generation of FloTrac/Vigileo™ after aortic clamp was not clinically acceptable (26.9%).

Conclusions

The degree of accuracy of the fourth-generation FloTrac/Vigileo™ in patients with AAA surgery was not acceptable. The tracking ability of the fourth-generation FloTrac/Vigileo™ after aortic clamp was below the acceptable limit.

Keywords

Blood pressure monitors Cardiac output Echocardiography Ultrasound 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Jane Charbonneau, DVM, from Edanz Group (www.edanzediting.com/ac) for editing a draft of this manuscript. We are also grateful to the resident doctors who cared for the patients in this study, for their cooperation. This research was supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP17K11100.

References

  1. 1.
    Mor-Avi V, Jenkins C, Kühl HP, Nesser HJ, Marwick T, Franke A, Ebner C, Freed BH, Steringer-Mascherbauer R, Pollard H, Weinert L, Niel J, Sugeng L, Lang RM. Real-time 3-dimensional echocardiographic quantification of left ventricular volumes: multicenter study for validation with magnetic resonance imaging and investigation of sources of error. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1:413–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mor-Avi V, Sugeng L, Lang RM. Real-time 3-dimensional echocardiography: an integral component of the routine echocardiographic examination in adult patients? Circulation. 2009;119:314–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shimada YJ, Ishikawa K, Kawase Y, Ladage D, Tilemann L, Shiota T, Hajjar RJ. Comparison of left ventricular stroke volume assessment by two- and three-dimensional echocardiography in a swine model of acute myocardial infarction validated by thermodilution method. Echocardiography. 2012;29:1091–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jenkins C, Bricknell K, Hanekom L, Marwick TH. Reproducibility and accuracy of echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular parameters using real-time three-dimensional echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:878–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balluz R, Liu L, Zhou X, Ge S. Real time three-dimensional echocardiography for quantification of ventricular volumes, mass, and function in children with congenital and acquired heart diseases. Echocardiography. 2013;30:472–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jakubovic BD, Wald R, Goldstein MB, Leong-Poi H, Yuen DA, Perl J, Lima JA, Liu JJ, Kirpalani A, Dacouris N, Wald R, Connelly KA, Yan AT. Comparative assessment of 2-dimensional echocardiography vs cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in measuring left ventricular mass in patients with and without end-stage renal disease. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29:384–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maeda T, Yoshitani K, Inatomi Y, Ohnishi Y. Inaccuracy of the FloTrac/Vigileo system in patients with low cardiac index. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2014;28:1521–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McNamara H, Barclay P, Sharma V. Accuracy and precision of the ultrasound cardiac output monitor (USCOM 1A) in pregnancy: comparison with three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113:669–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maeda T, Sakurai R, Nakagawa K, Morishima K, Maekawa M, Furumoto K, Kono T, Egawa A, Kubota Y, Kato S, Okamura H, Yoshitani K, Ohnishi Y. Cardiac resynchronization therapy-induced cardiac index increase measured by three-dimensional echocardiography can predict decreases in brain natriuretic peptide. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2016;30:599–605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Biancofiore G, Critchley LA, Lee A, Yang XX, Bindi LM, Esposito M, Bisà M, Meacci L, Mozzo R, Filipponi F. Evaluation of a new software version of the FloTrac/Vigileo (version 3.02) and a comparison with previous data in cirrhotic patients undergoing liver transplant surgery. Anesth Analg. 2011;113:515–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suehiro K, Tanaka K, Funao T, Matsuura T, Mori T, Nishikawa K. Systemic vascular resistance has an impact on the reliability of the Vigileo-FloTrac system in measuring cardiac output and tracking cardiac output changes. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111:170–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suehiro K, Tanaka K, Mikawa M, Uchihara Y, Matsuyama T, Matsuura T, Funao T, Yamada T, Mori T, Nishikawa K. Improved performance of the fourth-generation FloTrac/Vigileo system for tracking cardiac output changes. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2015;29:656–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kusaka Y, Yoshitani K, Irie T, Inatomi Y, Shinzawa M, Ohnishi Y. Clinical comparison of an echocardiograph-derived versus pulse counter-derived cardiac output measurement in abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012;26:223–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hattori K, Maeda T, Masubuchi T, Yoshikawa A, Ebuchi K, Morishima K, Kamei M, Yoshitani K, Ohnishi Y. Accuracy and trending ability of the fourth-generation FloTrac/Vigileo system in patients with low cardiac index. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2017;31:99–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Langewouters GJ, Wesseling KH, Goedhard WJ. The pressure dependent dynamic elasticity of 35 thoracic and 16 abdominal human aortas in vitro described by a five component model. J Biomech. 1985;18:613–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ji F, Li J, Fleming N, Rose D, Liu H. Reliability of a new 4th generation FloTrac algorithm to track cardiac output changes in patients receiving phenylephrine. J Clin Monit Comput. 2015;29:467–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin SY, Chou AH, Tsai YF, Chang SW, Yang MW, Ting PC, Chen CY. Evaluation of the use of the fourth version FloTrac system in cardiac output measurement before and after cardiopulmonary bypass. J Clin Monit Comput. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-017-0071-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vincent JL. Understanding cardiac output. Crit Care. 2008;12:174.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zoghbi WA, Enriquez-Sarano M, Foster E, Grayburn PA, Kraft CD, Levine RA, Nihoyannopoulos P, Otto CM, Quinones MA, Rakowski H, Stewart WJ, Waggoner A, Weissman NJ. Recommendations for evaluation of the severity of native valvular regurgitation with two-dimensional and Doppler echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2003;16:777–802.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnesthesiologyNational Cerebral and Cardiovascular CenterSuitaJapan
  2. 2.Division of Transfusion MedicineNational Cerebral and Cardiovascular CenterSuitaJapan
  3. 3.Anesthesilogy and Pain Relief CenterThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations