Key result
esCCO fails to provide clinically acceptable cardiac output accuracy compared to TPTD.
Why the study?
Whether noninvasive continuous cardiac output estimation methods based on pulse wave transit time are sufficiently accurate and precise to guide therapy in critical care needs further evaluation.
Does noninvasive continuous cardiac output estimation based on pulse wave transit time improve accuracy and precision of cardiac output measurement in critically ill patients?
Observational (n=38)
No
Does noninvasive continuous cardiac output estimation based on pulse wave transit time improve accuracy and precision of cardiac output measurement in critically ill patients?
Effect estimate: bias 1.6 l/min
Noninvasive continuous cardiac output estimation based on pulse wave transit time is not sufficiently accurate or precise for clinical use in critically ill patients compared to transpulmonary thermodilution.
esCCO lacks sufficient precision for clinical use in critically ill patients; leaves open whether refined noninvasive algorithms merit prospective validation.
Purpose. Estimation of cardiac output (CO) and evaluation of change in CO as a result of therapeutic interventions are essential in critical care medicine. Whether noninvasive tools estimating CO, such as continuous cardiac output (esCCOTM) methods, are sufficiently accurate and precise to guide therapy needs further evaluation. We compared esCCOTM with an established method, namely, transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD). Patients and Methods. In a single center mixed ICU, esCCOTM was compared with the TPTD method in 38 patients. The primary endpoint was accuracy and precision. The cardiac output was assessed by two investigators at baseline and after eight hours. Results. In 38 critically ill patients, the two methods correlated significantly (r = 0.742). The Bland–Altman analysis showed a bias of 1.6 l/min with limits of agreement of −1.76 l/min and +4.98 l/min. The percentage error for COesCCO was 47%. The correlation of trends in cardiac output after eight hours was significant (r = 0.442), with a concordance of 74%. The performance of COesCCO could not be linked to the patient’s condition. Conclusion. The accuracy and precision of the esCCOTM method were not clinically acceptable for our critical patients. EsCCOTM also failed to reliably detect changes in cardiac output.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ehlers et al. (2020) conducted an observational in critically ill (n=38). continuous cardiac output (esCCO) vs. transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) was evaluated on accuracy and precision (bias 1.6 l/min). Continuous cardiac output estimation using esCCO showed a bias of 1.6 L/min and a 47% error compared to transpulmonary thermodilution, failing to provide clinically acceptable accuracy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: