Nexfin noninvasive continuous hemodynamic monitoring: validation against continuous pulse contour and intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution derived cardiac output in critically ill patients

Koen Ameloot, Katrijn Van De Vijver, Ole Broch, Niels Van Regenmortel, Inneke De Laet, Karen Schoonheydt, Hilde Dits, Berthold Bein, Manu L N G Malbrain, Koen Ameloot, Katrijn Van De Vijver, Ole Broch, Niels Van Regenmortel, Inneke De Laet, Karen Schoonheydt, Hilde Dits, Berthold Bein, Manu L N G Malbrain

Abstract

Introduction: Nexfin (Bmeye, Amsterdam, Netherlands) is a noninvasive cardiac output (CO) monitor based on finger arterial pulse contour analysis. The aim of this study was to validate Nexfin CO (NexCO) against thermodilution (TDCO) and pulse contour CO (CCO) by PiCCO (Pulsion Medical Systems, Munich, Germany).

Patients and methods: In a mix of critically ill patients (n = 45), NexCO and CCO were measured continuously and recorded at 2-hour intervals during the 8-hour study period. TDCO was measured at 0-4-8 hrs.

Results: NexCO showed a moderate to good (significant) correlation with TDCO (R (2) 0.68, P < 0.001) and CCO (R (2) 0.71, P < 0.001). Bland and Altman analysis comparing NexCO with TDCO revealed a bias (± limits of agreement, LA) of 0.4 ± 2.32 L/min (with 36% error) while analysis comparing NexCO with CCO showed a bias (±LA) of 0.2 ± 2.32 L/min (37% error). NexCO is able to follow changes in TDCO and CCO during the same time interval (level of concordance 89.3% and 81%). Finally, polar plot analysis showed that trending capabilities were acceptable when changes in NexCO (ΔNexCO) were compared to ΔTDCO and ΔCCO (resp., 89% and 88.9% of changes were within the level of 10% limits of agreement).

Conclusion: we found a moderate to good correlation between CO measurements obtained with Nexfin and PiCCO.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cardiac output measurements: TDCO versus NexCO. Only one average value per patient is plotted. (a) Regression analysis. (b) Bland-Altman analysis. Patient averages with the mean cardiac output ranges (x-axis) and bias errors (y-axis) during the 8-hour study period. Dotted line indicates bias and solid lines indicate lower and upper limit of agreement. NexCO: Nexfin cardiac output. TDCO: thermodilution cardiac output.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cardiac output measurements: CCO versus NexCO. Only one average value per patient is plotted. (a) Regression analysis. (b) Bland-Altman analysis. Patient averages with the mean cardiac output ranges (x-axis) and errors (y-axis) during the 8-hour study period. Dotted line indicates bias and solid lines indicate lower and upper limit of agreement. CCO: pulse contour continuous cardiac output NexCO: Nexfin cardiac output.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Four quadrants trend plot. (a) Plot for 90 paired measurements of ΔNeXCO and ΔTDCO. From the 90 initial paired measurements, 34 pairs were excluded (exclusion zone is indicated as grey dots within grey-shaded square) because either ΔNexCO or ΔTDCO was ≤ ±15% or because ΔNexCO or ΔTDCO was equal to zero. The calculated level of concordance was 89.3% (50/56) (6 pairs felt within the upper left or lower right quadrant and correspond to poor concordance, black dots). See text for explanation. (b) Plot for 180 paired measurements of ΔNeXCO and ΔCCO. From the 180 initial paired measurements, 75 pairs were excluded (exclusion zone is indicated as grey-shaded square) because either ΔNexCO or ΔCCO was ≤ ±15% change or because ΔNexCO or ΔCCO was equal to zero. The calculated level of concordance was 81% (85/105). See text for explanation.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Polar plot. The distance from the center of the plot represents the mean change in cardiac output (ΔCO, expressed as %, with 1,0 referring to 100% change from baseline) and the angle θ with the horizontal (0-degree radial) axis represents agreement. The less the disagreement between CO measurements, the closer data pairs will lie along the horizontal radial axis. Data with good trending will lie within 10% limits of agreement. However, data with poor trending will be scattered throughout the plot and lie outside the limits of good and acceptable agreement (i.e., 10% and 20%, resp.). See text for explanation. (a) Polar plot for 90 paired measurements of mean ΔCO (%), calculated as absolute value of (ΔNeXCO + ΔTDCO)/2. From the 90 initial data 98.9% of the data points lie within the 20% lines and 89% within the 10% lines, suggesting acceptable trending capabilities. (b) Polar plot for 180 paired measurements of mean ΔCO (%), calculated as absolute value of (ΔNeXCO + ΔCCO)/2. From the 180 initial data 98.3% of the data points lie within the 20% lines and 88.9% within the 10% lines, suggesting acceptable trending capabilities.

References

    1. Calvin JE, Driedger AA, Sibbald WJ. Does the pulmonary capillary wedge pressure predict left ventricular preload in critically ill patients? Critical Care Medicine. 1981;9(6):437–443.
    1. Malbrain M, De Potter P, Deeren D. Cost effectiveness of minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring. In: Vincent JL, editor. Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine. 2005. pp. 603–618.
    1. Michard F. Do we need to know cardiac preload? In: Vincent JL, editor. Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine. 2004. pp. 694–701.
    1. Oren-Grinberg A. The piCCO monitor. International Anesthesiology Clinics. 2010;48(1):57–85.
    1. Genahr A, McLuckie A. Transpulmonary thermodilution in the critically ill. British Journal of Intensive Care. 2004;14(1):6–10.
    1. Holm C, Melcer B, Hörbrand F, Von Donnersmarck GH, Mühlbauer W. Arterial thermodilution: an alternative to pulmonary artery catheter for cardiac output assessment in burn patients. Burns. 2001;27(2):161–166.
    1. Goepfert MSG, Reuter DA, Akyol D, Lamm P, Kilger E, Goetz AE. Goal-directed fluid management reduces vasopressor and catecholamine use in cardiac surgery patients. Intensive Care Medicine. 2007;33(1):96–103.
    1. Mielck F, Buhre W, Hanekop G, Tirilomis T, Hilgers R, Sonntag H. Comparison of continuous cardiac output measurements in patients after cardiac surgery. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. 2003;17(2):211–216.
    1. Ritter S, Rudiger A, Maggiorini M. Transpulmonary thermodilution-derived cardiac function index identifies cardiac dysfunction in acute heart failure and septic patients: an observational study. Critical Care. 2009;13(4, article R133)
    1. Bindels AJGH, van der Hoeven JG, Graafland AD, De Koning J, Meinders AE. Relationships between volume and pressure measurements and stroke volume in critically ill patients. Critical Care. 2000;4(3):193–199.
    1. Kortgen A, Niederprün P, Bauer M. Implementation of an evidence-based “standard operating procedure” and outcome in septic shock. Critical Care Medicine. 2006;34(4):939–939.
    1. Scheer BV, Perel A, Pfeiffer UJ. Clinical review: complications and risk factors of peripheral arterial catheters used for haemodynamic monitoring in anaesthesia and intensive care medicine. Critical Care. 2002;6(3):198–204.
    1. Palmers PJ, Vidts W, Ameloot K, et al. Assessment of three minimally invasive continuous cardiac output measurement methods in critically ill patients and a review of the literature. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy. 2012;44(4):188–199.
    1. Stover JF, Stocker R, Lenherr R, et al. Noninvasive cardiac output and blood pressure monitoring cannot replace an invasive monitoring system in critically ill patients. BMC Anesthesiology. 2009;9, article 6
    1. Belda FJ, Aguilar G, Teboul JL, et al. Complications related to less-invasive haemodynamic monitoring. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2011;106(4):482–486.
    1. Wesseling KH, Jansen JRC, Settels JJ, Schreuder JJ. Computation of aortic flow from pressure in humans using a nonlinear, three-element model. Journal of Applied Physiology. 1993;74(5):2566–2573.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–310.
    1. Nowak RM, Sen A, Garcia AJ, et al. Noninvasive continuous or intermittent blood pressure and heart rate patient monitoring in the ED. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2011;29(7):782–789.
    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(2):85–91.
    1. Cecconi M, Rhodes A, Poloniecki J, Della Rocca G, Grounds RM. Bench-to-bedside review: the importance of the precision of the reference technique in method comparison studies: with specific reference to the measurement of cardiac output. Critical Care. 2009;13(1):201–206.
    1. Biancofiore G, Critchley LAH, Lee A, et al. Evaluation of an uncalibrated arterial pulse contour cardiac output monitoring system in cirrhotic patients undergoing liver surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2009;102(1):47–54.
    1. Critchley LA, Lee A, Ho AM-H. A critical review of the ability of continuous cardiac output monitors to measure trends in cardiac output. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2010;111(5):1180–1192.
    1. Monnet X, Picard F, Lidzborski E, et al. The estimation of cardiac output by the Nexfin device is of poor reliability for tracking the effects of a fluid challenge. Critical Care. 2012;16(5, article R212)
    1. Chen G, Meng L, Alexander B, Tran NP, Kain ZN, Cannesson M. Comparison of noninvasive cardiac output measurements using the Nexfin monitoring device and the esophageal Doppler. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. 2012;24(4):275–283.
    1. Broch O, Renner J, Gruenewald M, et al. A comparison of the Nexfin® and transcardiopulmonary thermodilution to estimate cardiac output during coronary artery surgery. Anaesthesia. 2012;67(4):377–383.
    1. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2001;345(19):1368–1377.
    1. Malbrain MLNG, Perel A, Segal E. How to implement the recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines at the bedside? A focus on initial fluid resuscitation. Fluids. 2013;2(1):25–29.
    1. Giustiniano E, Morenghiz E, Ruggier N. Flotrac/Vigileo validation trials: are there reliable conclusions? Clinical Psychology Review. 2011;3(6):62–65.
    1. Young BP, Low LL. Noninvasive monitoring cardiac output using partial CO2 rebreathing. Critical Care Clinics. 2010;26(2):383–392.
    1. Paarmann H, Groesdonk HV, Sedemund-Adib B, et al. Lack of agreement between pulmonary arterial thermodilution cardiac output and the pressure recording analytical method in postoperative cardiac surgery patients. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2011;106(4):475–481.
    1. Peyton PJ, Chong SW. Minimally invasive measurement of cardiac output during surgery and critical care. Anesthesiology. 2012;113:220–235.
    1. Fischer MO, Avram R, Cârjaliu I, et al. Non-invasive continuous arterial pressure and cardiac index monitoring with Nexfin after cardiac surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2012;109(4):514–521.
    1. Cecconi M, Malbrain ML. Cardiac output obtained by pulse pressure analysis: to calibrate or not to calibrate may not be the only question when used properly. Intensive Care Medicine. 2013;39(4):787–789.
    1. Van de Vijver K, Verstraeten A, Gillebert C, et al. Validation of non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring with Nexfin in critically ill patients. Critical Care. 2011;15(supplement 1):p. 75.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel