Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 85–91

A Meta-Analysis of Studies Using Bias and Precision Statistics to Compare Cardiac Output Measurement Techniques

  • Lester A. H. Critchley
  • Julian A. J. H. Critchley
Article

Abstract

Introduction. Bias and precision statistics have succeeded regression analysis when measurement techniques are compared. However, when applied to cardiac output measurements, inconsistencies occur in reporting the results of this form of analysis. Methods. A MEDLINE search was performed, dating from 1986. Studies comparing techniques of cardiac output measurement using bias and precision statistics were surveyed. An error-gram was constructed from the percentage errors in the test and reference methods and was used to determine acceptable limits of agreement between methods. Results. Twenty-five articles were found. Presentation of statistical data varied greatly. Four different statistical parameters were used to describe the agreement between measurements. The overall limits of agreement in studies evaluating bioimpedance (n = 23) was ±37% (15–82%) and in those evaluating Doppler ultrasound (n = 11) ±65% (25–225%). Objective criteria used to assess outcome were given in only 44% of the articles. These were (i) limits of agreement approaching ±15–20%, (ii) limits of agreement of less than 1 L/min, and (iii) more than 75% of bias measurements within ±20% of the mean. Graphically, we showed that limits of agreement of up to ±30% were acceptable. Conclusions. When using bias and precision statistics, cardiac output, bias, limits of agreement, and percentage error should be presented. Using current reference methods, acceptance of a new technique should rely on limits of agreement of up to ±30%.

Measurement techniques: thermodilution Measurement techniques: impedance cardiography Measurement techniques: Doppler Measurement techniques: Fick cardiac output statistical methods 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Fuller HD. The validity of cardiac output measurement by thoracic impedance: A metaanalysis. Clin Investiga-tiveMed 1992; 15: 103 112.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measure-ment. Lancet 1986; 1: 307 310.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Espersen K, Jensen EW, Rosenborg D, Thomsen JK, Eliasen K, Olsen NV, Kanstrup IL. Comparison of car-diac output measurement techniques: Thermodilution, Doppler, CO2-rebreathing and the direct Fick method. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1995; 39: 245 251.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Froese N, Friesen R. Measurement of cardiac output transtracheal Doppler versus thermodilution. Canadian J Anaesth 1991; 38: 931 934.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salandin V, Zussa C, Risica G, Michielon P, Paccagnella A, Cipolotti G, Simini G. Comparison of cardiac output estimation by thoracic electrical bioimpedance, thermo-dilution, and Fick methods. Crit Care Med 1988; 16: 1157 1158.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gotshall RW, Wood VC, Miles DS. Comparison of two impedance cardiographic techniques for measuring car-diac output in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 1989; 17: 806 811.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clancy TV, Norman K, Reynolds R, Covington D, Maxwell JG. Cardiac output measurement in critical care patients: Thoracic Electrical Bioimpedance versus ther-modilution. J Trauma 1991; 31: 1116 1120.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Northridge DB, Findlay IN, Wilson J, Henderson E, Dargie HJ. Non-invasive determination of cardiac out-put by Doppler echocardiography and electrical bioim-pedance. Br Heart J 1990; 63: 93 97.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spinale FG, Smith AC, Crawford FA. Relationship of bioimpedance to thermodilution and echocardiographic measurements of cardiac function. Crit Care Med 1990; 18: 414 418.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wong DH, Tremper KK, Stemmer EA, O'Connor D, Wilbur S, Zaccari J, Reeves C, Weido¡ P, Trujillo RJ. Noninvasive cardiac output: Simultaneous comparison of two di¡erent methods with thermodilution. Anes-thesiology 1990; 72: 784 792.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jewkes C, Sear JW, Verhoe¡ F, Sanders DJ, Foex P. Non-invasive measurement of cardiac output by thoracic elec-trical bioimpedance: A study of reproducibility and comparison with thermodilution. Br J Anaesth 1991; 67: 788 794.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O'Connell AJ, Tibballs J, Coulthard M. Improving agreement between thoracic bioimpedance and dye dilu-tion cardiac output estimation in children. Anaesth In-tensive Care 1991; 19: 434 440.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siegel LC, Fitzgerald DC, Engstrom RH. Simultaneous intraoperative measurement of cardiac output by ther-modilution and transtracheal Doppler. Anesthesiology 1991; 74: 664 669.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thomas AN, Ryan J, Doran BR, Pollard BJ. Bioimpe-dance versus thermodilution cardiac output measure-ment: The BoMed NCCOM3 after coronary bypass surgery. Intensive CareMed 1991; 17: 383 386.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ryan T, Page R, Bouchier-Hayes D, Cunningham AJ. Transoesophageal pulsed wave Doppler measurement of cardiac output during major vascular surgery: compar-ison with the thermodilution technique. Br J Anaesth 1992; 69: 101 104.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tibballs J, Hochmann M, Osborne A, Carter B. Accu-racy of the BoMED NCCOM3 bioimpedance cardiac output monitor during induced hypotension: An exper-imental study in dogs. Anaesth Intensive Care 1992; 20: 326 331.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sageman WS, Amundson DE. Thoracic electrical bio-impedance measurement of cardiac output in post-aortocoronary bypass patients. Crit Care Med 1993; 21: 1139 1142.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Young JD, McQuillan P. Comparison of thoracic elec-trical bioimpedance and thermodilution for the measure-ment of cardiac index in patients with severe sepsis. Br J Anaesth 1993; 70: 58 62.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Castor G, Klocke RK, Stoll M, Helms J, Niedermark I. Simultaneous measurement of cardiac output by thermo-dilution, thoracic electrical bioimpedance and Doppler ultrasound. Br J Anaesth 1994; 72: 133 138.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perrino AC, O'Connor T, Luther M. Transtracheal 90 Journal of ClinicalMonitoring and Computing Vol 15 No 2 February 1999 Doppler cardiac output monitoring: Comparison to thermodilution during noncardiac surgery. Anesth Analg 1994; 78: 1060 1066.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shoemaker WC, Wo CC, Bishop MH, Appel PL, Van de Water JM, Harrington GR, Wang X. Patil RS. Multi-center trial of a new thoracic electrical bioimpedance device for cardiac output estimation. Crit Care Med 1994; 22: 1907 1912.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Atallah MM, Demain AD. Cardiac output measurement: Lack of agreement between thermodilution and thoracic electric bioimpedance in two clinical settings. J Clin Anesth 1995; 7: 182 185.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keyl C, Rodig G, Lemberger P, Hobbhahn J. A compar-ison of the use of transoesophageal Doppler and thermo-dilution techniques for cardiac output determination. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1996; 13: 136 142.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pianosi PT, Garros D. Comparison of impedance cardi-ography with indirect Fick (CO2) method of measuring cardiac output in healthy children during exercise. Am J Cardiol 1996; 77: 745 749.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Young LE, Blissitt KJ, Bartram DH, Clutton RE, Molony V, Jones RS. Measurement of cardiac output by transoesophageal Doppler echocardiography in anaesthe-tized horses: Comparison with thermodilution. Br J Anaesth 1996; 77: 773 780.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Broomhead CJ, Wright SJ, Ki¡ KM, Withington PS. Validation of thoracic electrical bioimpedance as a por-cine research tool. Br J Anaesth 1997; 78: 323 325.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pianosi PT. Impedance cardiography accurately measures cardiac output during exercise in children with cystic ¢brosis. Chest 1997; 111: 333 337.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stetz CW, Miller RG, Kelly GE, Ra¤n TA. Reliability of the thermodilution method in the determination of cardiac output in clinical practice. Am Rev Respirat Dis 1982; 126: 1001 1004.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    LaMantia KR, O'Connor T, Barash PG. Comparing methods of measurement: An alternative approach. Anes-thesiology 1990; 72: 781 783.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mackenzie JD, Haites NE, Rawles JM. Method of assessing the reproducibility of blood £ow measurement: Factors in£uencing the performance of thermodilution cardiac output computers. Br Heart J 1986; 55: 14 24.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ng HW, Walley TJ, Mostafa SM. Comparison of ther-modilution, thoracic bioimpedance and Doppler ultra-sound cardiac output measurement. Br J Anaesth 1994; 73: 119 120.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Critchley LA, Critchley JA. Lung £uid and impedance cardiography. Anaesthesia 1988; 53: 369 372.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Critchley LA. Impedance cardiography: Impact of new technology. Anaesthesia 1988; 53: 677 685.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lester A. H. Critchley
    • 1
  • Julian A. J. H. Critchley
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive CareThe Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales HospitalShatinHong Kong

Personalised recommendations