Clinical validation of bioreactance for the measurement of cardiac output in pregnancy

H Z Ling, M Gallardo-Arozena, A M Company-Calabuig, K H Nicolaides, N A Kametas, H Z Ling, M Gallardo-Arozena, A M Company-Calabuig, K H Nicolaides, N A Kametas

Abstract

Maternal cardiac dysfunction is associated with pre-eclampsia, fetal growth restriction and haemodynamic instability during obstetric anaesthesia. There is growing interest in the use of non-invasive cardiac output monitoring to guide antihypertensive and fluid therapies in obstetrics. The aim of this study was to validate thoracic bioreactance using the NICOM® instrument against transthoracic echocardiography in pregnant women, and to assess the effects of maternal characteristics on the absolute difference of stroke volume, cardiac output and heart rate. We performed a prospective study involving women with singleton pregnancies in each trimester. We recruited 56 women who were between 11 and 14 weeks gestation, 57 between 20 and 23 weeks, and 53 between 35 and 37 weeks. Cardiac output was assessed repeatedly and simultaneously over 5 min in the left lateral position with NICOM and echocardiography. The performance of NICOM was assessed by calculating bias, 95% limits of agreement and mean percentage difference relative to echocardiography. Multivariate regression analysis evaluated the effect of maternal characteristics on the absolute difference between echocardiography and NICOM. The mean percentage difference of cardiac output measurements between the two methods was ±17%, with mean bias of -0.13 l.min-1 and limits of agreement of -1.1 to 0.84; stroke volume measurements had a mean percentage difference of ±15%, with a mean bias of -0.8 ml (-10.9 to 12.6); and heart rate measurements had a mean percentage difference of ±6%, with a mean bias of -2.4 beats.min-1 (-6.9 to 2.0). Similar results were found when the analyses were confined to each individual trimester. The absolute difference between NICOM and echocardiography was not affected by maternal age, weight, height, race, systolic or diastolic blood pressure. In conclusion, NICOM demonstrated good agreement with echocardiography, and can be used in pregnancy for the measurement of cardiac function.

Keywords: Doppler echocardiography; bioreactance; cardiac function; cardiac output; haemodynamics; pre-eclampsia; stroke volume.

© 2020 Association of Anaesthetists.

References

    1. Meah VL, Cockcroft JR, Backx K, Shave R, Stohr EJ. Cardiac output and related haemodynamics during pregnancy: a series of meta-analyses. Heart 2016; 102: 518-26.
    1. Stott D, Papastefanou I, Paraschiv D, Clark K, Kametas NA. Longitudinal maternal hemodynamics in pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2017; 49: 761-8.
    1. Roberts LA, Ling HZ, Poon LC, Nicolaides KH, Kametas NA. Maternal hemodynamics, fetal biometry and Doppler indices in pregnancies followed up for suspected fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2018; 52: 507-14.
    1. Stott D, Nzelu O, Nicolaides KH, Kametas NA. Maternal hemodynamics in normal pregnancy and in pregnancy affected by pre-eclampsia. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2018; 52: 359-64.
    1. Tay J, Foo L, Masini G, et al. Early and late preeclampsia are characterized by high cardiac output, but in the presence of fetal growth restriction, cardiac output is low: insights from a prospective study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2018; 218: 517. e1-e12.
    1. Ferrazzi E, Stampalija T, Monasta L, Di Martino D, Vonck S, Gyselaers W. Maternal hemodynamics: a method to classify hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2018; 218: 124. e1-e11.
    1. Ling HZ, Guy GP, Bisquera A, Poon LC, Nicolaides KH, Kametas NA. Maternal hemodynamics in screen-positive and screen-negative women of the ASPRE trial. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2019; 54: 51-7.
    1. Stott D, Bolten M, Paraschiv D, Papastefanou I, Chambers JB, Kametas NA. Maternal ethnicity and its impact on the haemodynamic and blood pressure response to labetalol for the treatment of antenatal hypertension. Open Heart 2016; 3: e000351.
    1. Melchiorre K, Sutherland G, Sharma R, Nanni M, Thilaganathan B. Mid-gestational maternal cardiovascular profile in preterm and term pre-eclampsia: a prospective study. British Journal of Gynaecology 2013; 120: 496-504.
    1. Melchiorre K, Sutherland GR, Watt-Coote I, Liberati M, Thilaganathan B. Severe myocardial impairment and chamber dysfunction in preterm preeclampsia. Hypertens Pregnancy 2012; 31: 454-71.
    1. Bamfo JEAK, Kametas NA, Turan O, Khaw A, Nicolaides KH. Maternal cardiac function in fetal growth restriction. British Journal of Gynaecology 2006; 113: 784-91.
    1. Langesaeter E, Gibbs M, Dyer RA. The role of cardiac output monitoring in obstetric anesthesia. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 2015; 28: 247-53.
    1. Langesaeter E, Dyer RA. Maternal haemodynamic changes during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 2011; 24: 242-8.
    1. Langesaeter E, Dragsund M, Rosseland LA. Regional anaesthesia for a Caesarean section in women with cardiac disease: a prospective study. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2010; 54: 46-54.
    1. Langesaeter E, Rosseland LA, Stubhaug A. Continuous invasive blood pressure and cardiac output monitoring during cesarean delivery: a randomized, double-blind comparison of low-dose versus high-dose spinal anesthesia with intravenous phenylephrine or placebo infusion. Anesthesiology 2008; 109: 856-63.
    1. Jakovljevic DG, Trenell MI, MacGowan GA. Bioimpedance and bioreactance methods for monitoring cardiac output. Best Practice and Research Clinical Anaesthesiology 2014; 28: 381-94.
    1. Keren H, Burkhoff D, Squara P. Evaluation of a noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring system based on thoracic bioreactance. American Journal of Physiology. Heart and Circulatory Physiology 2007; 293: H583-H589.
    1. Raval NY, Squara P, Cleman M, Yalamanchili K, Winklmaier M, Burkhoff D. Multicenter evaluation of noninvasive cardiac output measurement by bioreactance technique. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2008; 22: 113-9.
    1. Vinayagam D, Patey O, Thilaganathan B, Khalil A. Cardiac output assessment in pregnancy: comparison of two automated monitors with echocardiography. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2017; 49: 32-8.
    1. Doherty A, El-Khuffash A, Monteith C, et al. Comparison of bioreactance and echocardiographic non-invasive cardiac output monitoring and myocardial function assessment in primagravida women. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2017; 118: 527-32.
    1. McLaughlin K, Wright SP, Kingdom JCP, Parker JD. Clinical validation of non-invasive cardiac output monitoring in healthy pregnant women. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 2017; 39: 1008-14.
    1. Quinones MA, Otto CM, Stoddard M, Waggoner A, Zoghbi WA. Recommendations for quantification of Doppler echocardiography: a report from the Doppler Quantification Task Force of the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the American Society of Echocardiography. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 2002; 15: 167-84.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 1999; 8: 135-60.
    1. Clancy TV, Norman K, Reynolds R, Covington D, Maxwell JG. Cardiac output measurement in critical care patients: thoracic electrical bioimpedance versus thermodilution. Journal of Trauma 1991; 31: 1116-20.
    1. Salandin V, Zussa C, Risica G, et al. Comparison of cardiac output estimation by thoracic electrical bioimpedance, thermodilution, and Fick methods. Critical Care Medicine 1988; 16: 1157-8.
    1. Stetz CW, Miller RG, Kelly GE, Raffin TA. Reliability of the thermodilution method in the determination of cardiac output in clinical practice. American Review of Respiratory Disease 1982; 126: 1001-4.
    1. Critchley LAH, Critchley JAJH. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 1999; 15: 85-91.
    1. Cecconi M, Grounds M, Rhodes A. Methodologies for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement: are we as good as we think we are? Current Opinion in Critical Care 2007; 13: 294-6.
    1. Cornette J, Laker S, Jeffery B, et al. Validation of maternal cardiac output assessed by transthoracic echocardiography against pulmonary artery catheterization in severely ill pregnant women: prospective comparative study and systematic review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2017; 49: 25-31.
    1. Lee W, Rokey R, Cotton DB. Noninvasive maternal stroke volume and cardiac output determinations by pulsed Doppler echocardiography. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1988; 158: 505-10.
    1. Rossi A, Cornette J, Johnson MR, et al. Quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance in pregnant women: cross-sectional analysis of physiological parameters throughout pregnancy and the impact of the supine position. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2011; 13: 31.
    1. Lass T, Moller-Madsen MK, Nielsen HHM, Ringgaard S, Hasenkam JM. Dynamic geometry of the left ventricular outflow tract of pigs with induced supravalvular aortic stenosis. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 2012; 42: e80-e85.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir