Key result
The PulseCO system accurately measured cardiac output (R2: 0.79-0.95) compared to flow probes, but falsely indicated changes during pacing and blood pressure alterations.
Why the study?
Does the PulseCO system accurately measure continuous cardiac output compared to an ultrasonic flow probe in an anesthetized pig model?
Does the PulseCO system accurately measure continuous cardiac output compared to an ultrasonic flow probe in an anesthetized pig model?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The PulseCO system is useful for assessing acute changes in cardiac output but falsely indicates changes during alterations in heart rate or vascular tone.
Ultrasonic flow probes have been used to optimize biventricular pacing immediately after cardiopulmonary bypass, improving cardiac output (CO) by 10%; however, flow probes must be removed with chest closure. The PulseCO system (LiDCO Limited, Cambridge, UK) may extend optimization into the postoperative period, but controlled validations have not been reported. Six anesthetized pigs were instrumented for right heart bypass. Flow was varied from 3 to 1 L/min and then back to 3 in 0.5 L/min increments for 60 second intervals. CO was measured by ultrasonic flow probe on the aorta and by PulseCO using a femoral arterial line. PulseCO and flow probe accurately measured CO (PulseCO R2: 0.79-0.95; flow probe R2: 0.96-0.99). At flow of 2 L/min, when the heart was paced 30 bpm over the sinus rate, PulseCO falsely indicated an increase in CO (2.13 vs. 2.30 L/min, p = 0.014). When mean arterial pressure was increased by 20% using a phenylephrine infusion, PulseCO falsely indicated an increase in CO (2.13 vs. 2.47 L/min, p = 0.014). When mean arterial pressure was decreased by 20% using a nitroprusside infusion, PulseCO falsely indicated a decrease in CO (2.13 vs. 1.79 L/min, p = 0.003). PulseCO appears to be useful for assessing acute changes in CO if its limitations are recognized.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berberian et al. (2005) studied this question. PulseCO system vs. Ultrasonic flow probe was evaluated on Cardiac output measurement accuracy. The PulseCO system accurately measured cardiac output (R2: 0.79-0.95) compared to flow probes, but falsely indicated changes during pacing and blood pressure alterations.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: