Pulmonary Artery Catheter (PAC) Accuracy and Efficacy Compared with Flow Probe and Transcutaneous Doppler (USCOM): An Ovine Cardiac Output Validation.

School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 3010, Australia.
Critical care research and practice 01/2012; 2012:621496. DOI: 10.1155/2012/621496
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background. The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) is an accepted clinical method of measuring cardiac output (CO) despite no prior validation. The ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) is a noninvasive alternative to PAC using Doppler ultrasound (CW). We compared PAC and USCOM CO measurements against a gold standard, the aortic flow probe (FP), in sheep at varying outputs. Methods. Ten conscious sheep, with implanted FPs, had measurements of CO by FP, USCOM, and PAC, at rest and during intervention with inotropes and vasopressors. Results. CO measurements by FP, PAC, and USCOM were 4.0 ± 1.2 L/min, 4.8 ± 1.5 L/min, and 4.0 ± 1.4 L/min, respectively, (n = 280, range 1.9 L/min to 11.7 L/min). Percentage bias and precision between FP and PAC, and FP and USCOM was -17 and 47%, and 1 and 36%, respectively. PAC under-measured Dobutamine-induced CO changes by 20% (relative 66%) compared with FP, while USCOM measures varied from FP by 3% (relative 10%). PAC reliably detected -30% but not +40% CO changes, as measured by receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC), while USCOM reliably detected ±5% changes in CO (AUC > 0.70). Conclusions. PAC demonstrated poor accuracy and sensitivity as a measure of CO. USCOM provided equivalent measurements to FP across a sixfold range of outputs, reliably detecting ±5% changes.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Fluid infusion is one of the most common critical care interventions, yet approximately 50 % of all fluid interventions are unnecessary and potentially harmful. An improved approach to identification of fluid responsiveness is of clinical importance. Currently fluid responsiveness is most frequently identified by blood pressure (BP) measurements or a surrogate. However fluid responsiveness is simply the increase in stroke volume (SV) associated with volume expansion, and may not be reflected in BP or BP surrogates. Guyton demonstrated that BP = CO x SVR, and it is know that baroreceptor mediated autonomic nervous system regulation of SV and SVR to preserve BP may mask significant and critical changes in haemodynamics. Dr Pinsky in his recent J Clin Monit Comput Editorial evaluated the relative merits of pulse pressure variability (PPV) methods, a variant on BP measurement, for assessment of fluid responsiveness and promoted the use of physiologic challenges to augment the applicability of PPV. However this guidance is only half right. This letter reminds clinicians of the physiologic limitations of PPV as a measure of fluid responsiveness, even when combined with physiologic challenges, and recommends the replacement of BP with SV measurements. The combination of accurate Doppler measurement of SV and physiologic challenges, as Dr Pinsky recommends, is a physiologically rational and effective approach to identification of fluid responsiveness with established evidence. The direct monitoring of SV and SV changes has the potential to improve a long standing critical care and anaesthetic conundrum; when to give fluid and when to stop.
    Journal of clinical monitoring and computing. 07/2014;
  • Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 01/2014; 15(1):84-5. · 2.35 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 21, 2014