Key result
Non-invasive cardiac output determination using Nexfin CO-trek did not differ from thermodilution (mean difference 0.44 L/min supine), whereas Modelflow differed greatly (mean difference 1.80 L/min).
Why the study?
Does non-invasive finger arterial pressure input using Nexfin CO-trek or Modelflow accurately determine cardiac output compared to thermodilution in awake patients after CABG?
Observational (n=25)
Does non-invasive finger arterial pressure input using Nexfin CO-trek or Modelflow accurately determine cardiac output compared to thermodilution in awake patients after CABG?
Nexfin CO-trek, but not Modelflow, can accurately determine cardiac output non-invasively using finger arterial pressure in post-CABG patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May support non-invasive CO monitoring post-CABG; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before adoption.
Bogert et al. (2010) conducted an observational in coronary artery bypass surgery (n=25). Non-invasive finger arterial pressure input (Nexfin CO-trek and Modelflow) vs. Intra-arterial pressure input and pulmonary artery thermodilution was evaluated on Mean difference between thermodilution cardiac output and pulse contour methods. Non-invasive cardiac output determination using Nexfin CO-trek did not differ from thermodilution (mean difference 0.44 L/min supine), whereas Modelflow differed greatly (mean difference 1.80 L/min).