15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Non-Invasive Monitoring of Cardiac Output in Critical Care Medicine

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Critically ill patients require close hemodynamic monitoring to titrate treatment on a regular basis. It allows administering fluid with parsimony and adjusting inotropes and vasoactive drugs when necessary. Although invasive monitoring is considered as the reference method, non-invasive monitoring presents the obvious advantage of being associated with fewer complications, at the expanse of accuracy, precision, and step-response change. A great many methods and devices are now used over the world, and this article focuses on several of them, providing with a brief review of related underlying physical principles and validation articles analysis. Reviewed methods include electrical bioimpedance and bioreactance, respiratory-derived cardiac output (CO) monitoring technique, pulse wave transit time, ultrasound CO monitoring, multimodal algorithmic estimation, and inductance thoracocardiography. Quality criteria with which devices were reviewed included: accuracy (closeness of agreement between a measurement value and a true value of the measured), precision (closeness of agreement between replicate measurements on the same or similar objects under specified conditions), and step response change (delay between physiological change and its indication). Our conclusion is that the offer of non-invasive monitoring has improved in the past few years, even though further developments are needed to provide clinicians with sufficiently accurate devices for routine use, as alternative to invasive monitoring devices.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Minimally invasive measurement of cardiac output during surgery and critical care: a meta-analysis of accuracy and precision.

          When assessing the accuracy and precision of a new technique for cardiac output measurement, the commonly quoted criterion for acceptability of agreement with a reference standard is that the percentage error (95% limits of agreement/mean cardiac output) should be 30% or less. We reviewed published data on four different minimally invasive methods adapted for use during surgery and critical care: pulse contour techniques, esophageal Doppler, partial carbon dioxide rebreathing, and transthoracic bioimpedance, to assess their bias, precision, and percentage error in agreement with thermodilution. An English language literature search identified published papers since 2000 which examined the agreement in adult patients between bolus thermodilution and each method. For each method a meta-analysis was done using studies in which the first measurement point for each patient could be identified, to obtain a pooled mean bias, precision, and percentage error weighted according to the number of measurements in each study. Forty-seven studies were identified as suitable for inclusion: N studies, n measurements: mean weighted bias [precision, percentage error] were: pulse contour N = 24, n = 714: -0.00 l/min [1.22 l/min, 41.3%]; esophageal Doppler N = 2, n = 57: -0.77 l/min [1.07 l/min, 42.1%]; partial carbon dioxide rebreathing N = 8, n = 167: -0.05 l/min [1.12 l/min, 44.5%]; transthoracic bioimpedance N = 13, n = 435: -0.10 l/min [1.14 l/min, 42.9%]. None of the four methods has achieved agreement with bolus thermodilution which meets the expected 30% limits. The relevance in clinical practice of these arbitrary limits should be reassessed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluation of a noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring system based on thoracic bioreactance.

            Noninvasive cardiac output (CO) measurement can be useful in many clinical settings where invasive monitoring is not desired. Bioimpedance (intrabeat measurement of changes in transthoracic voltage amplitude in response to an injected high-frequency current) has been explored for this purpose but is limited in some clinical settings because of inherently low signal-to-noise ratio. Since changes in fluid content also induce changes in thoracic capacitive and inductive properties, we tested whether a noninvasive CO measurement could be obtained through measurement of the relative phase shift of an injected current (i.e., bioreactance). We constructed a prototype device that applies a 75-kHz current and determines the relative phase shift (dPhi/dt) of the recorded transthoracic voltage. CO was related to the product of peak dPhi/dt, heart rate, and ventricular ejection time. The preclinical study was done in nine open-chest pigs put on right heart bypass so that CO could be varied at known values. This was followed by a feasibility study in 27 postoperative patients who had a Swan-Ganz catheter (SGC). The measurements of noninvasive CO measurement and cardiopulmonary bypass pump correlated to each other (r = 0.84) despite the large variation in CO and temperatures. Similarly, in patients, mean CO values were 5.18 and 5.17 l/min as measured by SGC and the noninvasive CO measurement system, respectively, and were highly correlated over the range of values studied (r = 0.90). Preclinical and clinical data demonstrate the feasibility of using blood flow-related phase shifts of transthoracic electric signals to perform noninvasive continuous CO monitoring.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Accuracy and precision of non-invasive cardiac output monitoring devices in perioperative medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis†.

              Cardiac output (CO) measurement is crucial for the guidance of therapeutic decisions in critically ill and high-risk surgical patients. Newly developed completely non-invasive CO technologies are commercially available; however, their accuracy and precision have not recently been evaluated in a meta-analysis. We conducted a systematic search using PubMed, Cochrane Library of Clinical Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science to review published data comparing CO measured by bolus thermodilution with commercially available non-invasive technologies including pulse wave transit time, non-invasive pulse contour analysis, thoracic electrical bioimpedance/bioreactance, and CO2 rebreathing. The non-invasive CO technology was considered acceptable if the pooled estimate of percentage error was <30%, as previously recommended. Using a random-effects model, sd, pooled mean bias, and mean percentage error were calculated. An I2 statistic was also used to evaluate the inter-study heterogeneity. A total of 37 studies (1543 patients) were included. Mean CO of both methods was 4.78 litres min−1. Bias was presented as the reference method minus the tested methods in 15 studies. Only six studies assessed the random error (repeatability) of the tested device. The overall random-effects pooled bias (limits of agreement) and the percentage error were −0,13 [−2.38 , 2.12] litres min−1 and 47%, respectively. Inter-study sensitivity heterogeneity was high (I2=83%, P<0.001). With a wide percentage error, completely non-invasive CO devices are not interchangeable with bolus thermodilution. Additional studies are warranted to demonstrate their role in improving the quality of care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Med (Lausanne)
                Front Med (Lausanne)
                Front. Med.
                Frontiers in Medicine
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-858X
                20 November 2017
                2017
                : 4
                : 200
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Critical Care Medicine Department, CMC Ambroise Paré , Neuilly-sur-Seine, France
                Author notes

                Edited by: Samir G. Sakka, Witten/Herdecke University, Germany

                Reviewed by: Michael A. Dubick, United States Army Institute of Surgical Research, United States; Marina Soro, Hospital Clinico Universitario de Valencia, Spain

                *Correspondence: Pierre Squara, pierre.squara@ 123456orange.fr

                Specialty section: This article was submitted to Intensive Care Medicine and Anesthesiology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Medicine

                Article
                10.3389/fmed.2017.00200
                5715400
                29230392
                35dcd049-a6ef-4a07-b7e0-2e7524ba5186
                Copyright © 2017 Nguyen and Squara.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 22 September 2017
                : 02 November 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 1, Equations: 11, References: 71, Pages: 8, Words: 6329
                Categories
                Medicine
                Review

                non-invasive monitoring,cardiac output,hemodynamics,critical care medicine,bioreactance

                Comments

                Comment on this article