Next article Search Articles Instructions for authors  Access Statistics | Citation Manager  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3563    
    Printed160    
    Emailed3    
    PDF Downloaded659    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 40    

Recommend this journal

Comparison of simultaneous estimation of cardiac output by four techniques in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery- a prospective observational study


Wockhardt Heart Institute, Bangalore, Karnataka., India

Correspondence Address:
Murali Chakravarthy
Chief Consultant Anesthesiologist, Wockhardt Heart Institute, Bangalore 560052, Karnataka.
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0971-9784.37937

Rights and Permissions

Year : 2007  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 121-126

 

SEARCH
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles

  Article in PDF (235 KB)
Email article
Print Article
Add to My List
We prospectively compared four techniques of cardiac output measurement: bolus thermodilution cardiac output (TDCO), continuous cardiac output (CCO), pulse contour cardiac output (PiCCO™), and Flowtrac (FCCO), simultaneously in fifteen patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB). All the patients received pulmonary artery catheter (capable of measuring both bolus thermodilution cardiac output and CCO), PiCCO arterial cannula in the left and FCCO in the right femoral artery. Cardiac indices (CI) were obtained every fifteen minutes by using all the four techniques. TDCO was treated as 'control' and the rest were treated as 'test' values. Interchangeability of techniques with TDCO was assessed by Bland and Altman plotting and mountain plot. Four hundred and thirty eight sets of data were obtained from fifteen patients. The values of cardiac output varied between 1 to 6.9 L/min. We found that the values of all the techniques were interchangeable. At certain times, the values of CI measured by both PiCCO and FCCO appeared erratic. The values of CI measured simultaneously appeared in the following descending order of accuracy; TDCO>CCO>FCCO>PiCCO ( the % times TDCO correlated with CCO, FCCO, PiCCO was 93, 86 and 80 respectively). The bias and precision (in L/ min) for CCO were 0.03, 0.06, PiCCO 0.13, 0.1 and flowtrac 0.15, 0.04 respectively suggesting interchangeability. We conclude that the cardiac output measured by CCO technique and the pulse contour as measured by PiCCO and FCCO were interchangeable with TDCO more than 80% of the times.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
 

 

 

 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 
 
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
  *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 
 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
 




Wockhardt Heart Institute, Bangalore, Karnataka., India

Correspondence Address:
Murali Chakravarthy
Chief Consultant Anesthesiologist, Wockhardt Heart Institute, Bangalore 560052, Karnataka.
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0971-9784.37937

Rights and Permissions

We prospectively compared four techniques of cardiac output measurement: bolus thermodilution cardiac output (TDCO), continuous cardiac output (CCO), pulse contour cardiac output (PiCCO™), and Flowtrac (FCCO), simultaneously in fifteen patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB). All the patients received pulmonary artery catheter (capable of measuring both bolus thermodilution cardiac output and CCO), PiCCO arterial cannula in the left and FCCO in the right femoral artery. Cardiac indices (CI) were obtained every fifteen minutes by using all the four techniques. TDCO was treated as 'control' and the rest were treated as 'test' values. Interchangeability of techniques with TDCO was assessed by Bland and Altman plotting and mountain plot. Four hundred and thirty eight sets of data were obtained from fifteen patients. The values of cardiac output varied between 1 to 6.9 L/min. We found that the values of all the techniques were interchangeable. At certain times, the values of CI measured by both PiCCO and FCCO appeared erratic. The values of CI measured simultaneously appeared in the following descending order of accuracy; TDCO>CCO>FCCO>PiCCO ( the % times TDCO correlated with CCO, FCCO, PiCCO was 93, 86 and 80 respectively). The bias and precision (in L/ min) for CCO were 0.03, 0.06, PiCCO 0.13, 0.1 and flowtrac 0.15, 0.04 respectively suggesting interchangeability. We conclude that the cardiac output measured by CCO technique and the pulse contour as measured by PiCCO and FCCO were interchangeable with TDCO more than 80% of the times.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article