Key result
Non-invasive Clearsight pulse-contour analysis demonstrated strong agreement with an invasive PiCCO device for measuring stroke volume during major surgery, with a bias of -0.89 ± 4.78 ml.
Why the study?
Intravenous fluid boluses guided by stroke volume changes improve outcomes after major surgery, but invasive measurements may limit their use.
Does a non-invasive photoplethysmographic device provide similar stroke volume measurements compared to an invasive pulse-contour cardiac output device in adults undergoing major elective surgery?
Population
20 adults undergoing major elective surgery
Comparison
Photoplethysmographic device (Clearsight) vs thermodilution-calibrated PiCCO
Design
Comparative observational study
Authors
Loading...
May support non-invasive stroke volume monitoring in major surgery; leaves open outcome trials before practice change.
Observational (n=20)
Does a non-invasive photoplethysmographic device provide similar stroke volume measurements compared to an invasive pulse-contour cardiac output device in adults undergoing major elective surgery?
Effect estimate: bias -0.89 ± 4.78 ml
Non-invasive photoplethysmographic pulse-contour analysis provides similar absolute and changing stroke volume measurements compared to invasive thermodilution-calibrated devices during major surgery.
Boisson et al. (2019) conducted an observational in major elective surgery (n=20). Clearsight (photoplethysmographic device) vs. PiCCO (invasive pulse-contour cardiac output device) was evaluated on agreement and trending ability for stroke volume measurement (bias -0.89 ± 4.78 ml). Non-invasive Clearsight pulse-contour analysis demonstrated strong agreement with an invasive PiCCO device for measuring stroke volume during major surgery, with a bias of -0.89 ± 4.78 ml.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: