Key result
The Nexfin device did not adequately track changes in cardiac output in critically ill patients, showing a sensitivity of 47% and accuracy of 64% compared with echocardiography.
Why the study?
Does non-invasive arterial pulse contour analysis (Nexfin) accurately track changes in cardiac output compared to echocardiography in intensive care unit patients?
Population
38 intensive care unit patients
Comparison
Non-invasive arterial pulse contour analysis… vs Transthoracic echocardiography
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Nexfin should not guide fluid challenges in ICU patients; leaves open need for validated non-invasive CO monitors versus echocardiography.
Observational (n=38)
Does non-invasive arterial pulse contour analysis (Nexfin) accurately track changes in cardiac output compared to echocardiography in intensive care unit patients?
Effect estimate: Sensitivity 47%, specificity 81%, accuracy 64%
The Nexfin non-invasive pulse contour device does not adequately track changes in cardiac output during fluid challenges in critically ill patients when compared to transthoracic echocardiography.
Taton et al. (2013) conducted an observational in Critically ill patients (n=38). Nexfin non-invasive arterial pulse contour technique vs. Transthoracic echocardiography was evaluated on Detection of a response to fluid challenge (≥10% increase in cardiac output) (Sensitivity 47%, specificity 81%, accuracy 64%). The Nexfin device did not adequately track changes in cardiac output in critically ill patients, showing a sensitivity of 47% and accuracy of 64% compared with echocardiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: