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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: C. Pisitsak, P. Luetrakool, M. Pisalayon, T. Thamjamrassri
Other Authors: Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University
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