Key result
Noninvasive radial artery applanation tonometry significantly underestimated cardiac output compared to invasive measurements, with a large bias of 2.03 L/min/m2 and 85% error (P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does noninvasive radial artery applanation tonometry accurately estimate cardiac output compared to invasive measurements in critically ill patients?
Observational (n=49)
Does noninvasive radial artery applanation tonometry accurately estimate cardiac output compared to invasive measurements in critically ill patients?
Mean Difference: 2.03
p-value: p=<0.001
Noninvasive radial artery applanation tonometry is inaccurate and not suitable for determining cardiac output in critically ill, hemodynamically unstable patients.
Radial artery tonometry should not guide cardiac output management in unstable patients; leaves open need for prospective validation studies.
Conventional thermodilution cardiac output (CO) monitoring is limited mainly to intensive care units and operating rooms because it requires the use of invasive techniques. To reduce the potential for complications and to broaden the applicability of hemodynamic monitoring, noninvasive methods for CO determination are being sought. Applanation tonometry allows noninvasive CO estimation through pulse contour analysis, but the method has not been evaluated in critically ill patients. We therefore performed noninvasive radial artery applanation tonometry in 49 critically ill medical intensive care unit patients and compared CO estimates to invasive CO measurements obtained using a pulmonary artery catheter or the PiCCO transpulmonary thermodilution system. One-hundred-sixteen measurements were performed, and patients were receiving vasopressor support during 78 measurements. When the data were analyzed with bias and precision statistics, a large bias of 2.03 L x min(-1) x m(-2) and a high percentage error of 85% were found between the invasive measurements and applanation tonometry-derived CO estimates, with the noninvasive CO results being significantly lower than the invasive ones (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in bias between the patients who were receiving vasopressor support and those who were not (P = 0.874) or between patients with good and poor applanation tonometry pressure waveform signal quality (P = 0.071). Whereas a significant increase in the invasively determined CO was observed when a fluid bolus was administered (n = 7, P = 0.016), these changes were not reflected by the noninvasive method. We conclude that radial artery applanation tonometry is not suitable to determine CO in critically ill hemodynamically unstable patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Compton et al. (2008) conducted an observational in Critically ill (n=49). Noninvasive radial artery applanation tonometry vs. Invasive cardiac output measurements (pulmonary artery catheter or PiCCO) was evaluated on Cardiac output estimation accuracy (bias and precision) (bias of 2.03 L/min/m2, p=<0.001). Noninvasive radial artery applanation tonometry significantly underestimated cardiac output compared to invasive measurements, with a large bias of 2.03 L/min/m2 and 85% error (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: