Are noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring interchangeable with esophageal doppler?
© 2020 Medical Association of Thailand. All rights reserved. Objective: To compare the trending ability, accuracy, and precision of non-invasive stroke volume (SV) measurement based on a bioreactance technique and measurement of the pulse wave transit time (PWTT) versus the esophageal Doppler monito...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Article |
Published: |
2020
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/58136 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Mahidol University |
id |
th-mahidol.58136 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
th-mahidol.581362020-08-25T17:36:49Z Are noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring interchangeable with esophageal doppler? C. Pisitsak P. Luetrakool M. Pisalayon T. Thamjamrassri Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University Medicine © 2020 Medical Association of Thailand. All rights reserved. Objective: To compare the trending ability, accuracy, and precision of non-invasive stroke volume (SV) measurement based on a bioreactance technique and measurement of the pulse wave transit time (PWTT) versus the esophageal Doppler monitoring (EDM). Materials and Methods: Two hundred twenty-seven paired measurements from 10 patients who underwent abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were included for SV measurements. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated, and Bland-Altman analysis was performed to evaluate the agreement between EDM and bioreactance (EDM-bioreactance) and between EDM and PWTT (EDM-PWTT). Results: EDM-bioreactance had a correlation coefficient of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62 to 0.78; p<0.001), bias of 0.28 ml (limits of agreement -30.92 to 31.38 ml), and percentage error of 46.82%. EDM-PWTT had a correlation coefficient of 0.48 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.72; p<0.001), bias of -0.18 ml (limits of agreement -40.28 to 39.92 ml), and percentage error of 60.17%. A subgroup analysis of data from patients who underwent crystalloid loading was performed to detect the trending ability. The four-quadrant plot analysis between EDM-bioreactance and EDM-PWTT demonstrated concordance rates of 70.00% and 73.68%, respectively. Conclusion: SV measurement based on bioreactance technique and measurement of PWTT are not interchangeable with EDM. 2020-08-25T10:36:49Z 2020-08-25T10:36:49Z 2020-06-01 Article Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. Vol.103, No.6 (2020), 541-547 10.35755/jmedassocthai.2020.06.10413 01252208 2-s2.0-85089115969 https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/58136 Mahidol University SCOPUS https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85089115969&origin=inward |
institution |
Mahidol University |
building |
Mahidol University Library |
continent |
Asia |
country |
Thailand Thailand |
content_provider |
Mahidol University Library |
collection |
Mahidol University Institutional Repository |
topic |
Medicine |
spellingShingle |
Medicine C. Pisitsak P. Luetrakool M. Pisalayon T. Thamjamrassri Are noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring interchangeable with esophageal doppler? |
description |
© 2020 Medical Association of Thailand. All rights reserved. Objective: To compare the trending ability, accuracy, and precision of non-invasive stroke volume (SV) measurement based on a bioreactance technique and measurement of the pulse wave transit time (PWTT) versus the esophageal Doppler monitoring (EDM). Materials and Methods: Two hundred twenty-seven paired measurements from 10 patients who underwent abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were included for SV measurements. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated, and Bland-Altman analysis was performed to evaluate the agreement between EDM and bioreactance (EDM-bioreactance) and between EDM and PWTT (EDM-PWTT). Results: EDM-bioreactance had a correlation coefficient of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62 to 0.78; p<0.001), bias of 0.28 ml (limits of agreement -30.92 to 31.38 ml), and percentage error of 46.82%. EDM-PWTT had a correlation coefficient of 0.48 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.72; p<0.001), bias of -0.18 ml (limits of agreement -40.28 to 39.92 ml), and percentage error of 60.17%. A subgroup analysis of data from patients who underwent crystalloid loading was performed to detect the trending ability. The four-quadrant plot analysis between EDM-bioreactance and EDM-PWTT demonstrated concordance rates of 70.00% and 73.68%, respectively. Conclusion: SV measurement based on bioreactance technique and measurement of PWTT are not interchangeable with EDM. |
author2 |
Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University |
author_facet |
Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University C. Pisitsak P. Luetrakool M. Pisalayon T. Thamjamrassri |
format |
Article |
author |
C. Pisitsak P. Luetrakool M. Pisalayon T. Thamjamrassri |
author_sort |
C. Pisitsak |
title |
Are noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring interchangeable with esophageal doppler? |
title_short |
Are noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring interchangeable with esophageal doppler? |
title_full |
Are noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring interchangeable with esophageal doppler? |
title_fullStr |
Are noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring interchangeable with esophageal doppler? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Are noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring interchangeable with esophageal doppler? |
title_sort |
are noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring interchangeable with esophageal doppler? |
publishDate |
2020 |
url |
https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/58136 |
_version_ |
1763495344269688832 |