FloTrac/vigileo™ (third generation) and mostcare®/PRAM versus echocardiography for cardiac output estimation in vascular surgery

Stefano Romagnoli, Zaccaria Ricci, Salvatore M. Romano, Fabio Dimizio, Eleonora Bonicolini, Diego Quattrone, Raffaele De Gaudio

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To compare the FloTrac/Vigileo™ cardiac output (CO FT/V) and the MostCare®/PRAM cardiac output (COMC/P) versus transthoracic echocardiographic cardiac output estimation (reference method; COECHO). Design Prospective observational study. Setting Single center, Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular Surgery/Intensive Care Unit. Participants Patients undergoing elective vascular surgery. Interventions Cardiac output measurement with two pulse contour methods: the FloTrac/Vigileo™ and the MostCare®/PRAM before (T1) and after (T2) fluid loading versus echocardiography (reference method). Measurements and Main Results One hundred fifty-six CO measurements were performed in 26 patients. The data showed poor agreement between COECHO and COFT/V: r2 = 0.29 (T1) and 0.27 (T2); bias -0.37 (T1) and -0.40 (T2) L/min; limits of agreement from -3.10 to 2.42 (T1) and from -3.0 to 2.2 (T2) L/min. The percentage error was 51.7% (T1) and 49.3% (T2). Conversely, COMC/P resulted in agreement with echocardiography: r2 = 0.76 (T1) and 0.80 (T2); bias -0.01 (T1) and -0.06 (T2) L/min; limits of agreement from -1.13 to 1.11 (T1) and from -0.90 to 0.80 (T2) L/min, with a PE of 22.4% (T1) and of 17.0% (T2). Conclusions In patients undergoing vascular surgery, the FloTrac/Vigileo™ did not demonstrate that it was a reliable system for CO monitoring when compared with echocardiography-derived CO. However, MostCare®/PRAM was shown to estimate CO with a good level of agreement with echocardiographic measures.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1114-1121
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia
Volume27
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2013

Fingerprint

Carbon Monoxide
Cardiac Output
Blood Vessels
Echocardiography
Thoracic Surgery
Observational Studies
Intensive Care Units
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • cardiac output
  • cardiac output monitors
  • FloTrac
  • goal-directed therapy
  • MostCare
  • PRAM
  • pulse contour methods
  • vascular surgery
  • Vigileo

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

FloTrac/vigileo™ (third generation) and mostcare®/PRAM versus echocardiography for cardiac output estimation in vascular surgery. / Romagnoli, Stefano; Ricci, Zaccaria; Romano, Salvatore M.; Dimizio, Fabio; Bonicolini, Eleonora; Quattrone, Diego; De Gaudio, Raffaele.

In: Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, Vol. 27, No. 6, 12.2013, p. 1114-1121.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Romagnoli, Stefano ; Ricci, Zaccaria ; Romano, Salvatore M. ; Dimizio, Fabio ; Bonicolini, Eleonora ; Quattrone, Diego ; De Gaudio, Raffaele. / FloTrac/vigileo™ (third generation) and mostcare®/PRAM versus echocardiography for cardiac output estimation in vascular surgery. In: Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. 2013 ; Vol. 27, No. 6. pp. 1114-1121.
@article{508fc31b62c547d5bd053edc48bd6a8d,
title = "FloTrac/vigileo™ (third generation) and mostcare{\circledR}/PRAM versus echocardiography for cardiac output estimation in vascular surgery",
abstract = "Objective To compare the FloTrac/Vigileo™ cardiac output (CO FT/V) and the MostCare{\circledR}/PRAM cardiac output (COMC/P) versus transthoracic echocardiographic cardiac output estimation (reference method; COECHO). Design Prospective observational study. Setting Single center, Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular Surgery/Intensive Care Unit. Participants Patients undergoing elective vascular surgery. Interventions Cardiac output measurement with two pulse contour methods: the FloTrac/Vigileo™ and the MostCare{\circledR}/PRAM before (T1) and after (T2) fluid loading versus echocardiography (reference method). Measurements and Main Results One hundred fifty-six CO measurements were performed in 26 patients. The data showed poor agreement between COECHO and COFT/V: r2 = 0.29 (T1) and 0.27 (T2); bias -0.37 (T1) and -0.40 (T2) L/min; limits of agreement from -3.10 to 2.42 (T1) and from -3.0 to 2.2 (T2) L/min. The percentage error was 51.7{\%} (T1) and 49.3{\%} (T2). Conversely, COMC/P resulted in agreement with echocardiography: r2 = 0.76 (T1) and 0.80 (T2); bias -0.01 (T1) and -0.06 (T2) L/min; limits of agreement from -1.13 to 1.11 (T1) and from -0.90 to 0.80 (T2) L/min, with a PE of 22.4{\%} (T1) and of 17.0{\%} (T2). Conclusions In patients undergoing vascular surgery, the FloTrac/Vigileo™ did not demonstrate that it was a reliable system for CO monitoring when compared with echocardiography-derived CO. However, MostCare{\circledR}/PRAM was shown to estimate CO with a good level of agreement with echocardiographic measures.",
keywords = "cardiac output, cardiac output monitors, FloTrac, goal-directed therapy, MostCare, PRAM, pulse contour methods, vascular surgery, Vigileo",
author = "Stefano Romagnoli and Zaccaria Ricci and Romano, {Salvatore M.} and Fabio Dimizio and Eleonora Bonicolini and Diego Quattrone and {De Gaudio}, Raffaele",
year = "2013",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1053/j.jvca.2013.04.017",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "1114--1121",
journal = "Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia",
issn = "1053-0770",
publisher = "W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - FloTrac/vigileo™ (third generation) and mostcare®/PRAM versus echocardiography for cardiac output estimation in vascular surgery

AU - Romagnoli, Stefano

AU - Ricci, Zaccaria

AU - Romano, Salvatore M.

AU - Dimizio, Fabio

AU - Bonicolini, Eleonora

AU - Quattrone, Diego

AU - De Gaudio, Raffaele

PY - 2013/12

Y1 - 2013/12

N2 - Objective To compare the FloTrac/Vigileo™ cardiac output (CO FT/V) and the MostCare®/PRAM cardiac output (COMC/P) versus transthoracic echocardiographic cardiac output estimation (reference method; COECHO). Design Prospective observational study. Setting Single center, Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular Surgery/Intensive Care Unit. Participants Patients undergoing elective vascular surgery. Interventions Cardiac output measurement with two pulse contour methods: the FloTrac/Vigileo™ and the MostCare®/PRAM before (T1) and after (T2) fluid loading versus echocardiography (reference method). Measurements and Main Results One hundred fifty-six CO measurements were performed in 26 patients. The data showed poor agreement between COECHO and COFT/V: r2 = 0.29 (T1) and 0.27 (T2); bias -0.37 (T1) and -0.40 (T2) L/min; limits of agreement from -3.10 to 2.42 (T1) and from -3.0 to 2.2 (T2) L/min. The percentage error was 51.7% (T1) and 49.3% (T2). Conversely, COMC/P resulted in agreement with echocardiography: r2 = 0.76 (T1) and 0.80 (T2); bias -0.01 (T1) and -0.06 (T2) L/min; limits of agreement from -1.13 to 1.11 (T1) and from -0.90 to 0.80 (T2) L/min, with a PE of 22.4% (T1) and of 17.0% (T2). Conclusions In patients undergoing vascular surgery, the FloTrac/Vigileo™ did not demonstrate that it was a reliable system for CO monitoring when compared with echocardiography-derived CO. However, MostCare®/PRAM was shown to estimate CO with a good level of agreement with echocardiographic measures.

AB - Objective To compare the FloTrac/Vigileo™ cardiac output (CO FT/V) and the MostCare®/PRAM cardiac output (COMC/P) versus transthoracic echocardiographic cardiac output estimation (reference method; COECHO). Design Prospective observational study. Setting Single center, Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular Surgery/Intensive Care Unit. Participants Patients undergoing elective vascular surgery. Interventions Cardiac output measurement with two pulse contour methods: the FloTrac/Vigileo™ and the MostCare®/PRAM before (T1) and after (T2) fluid loading versus echocardiography (reference method). Measurements and Main Results One hundred fifty-six CO measurements were performed in 26 patients. The data showed poor agreement between COECHO and COFT/V: r2 = 0.29 (T1) and 0.27 (T2); bias -0.37 (T1) and -0.40 (T2) L/min; limits of agreement from -3.10 to 2.42 (T1) and from -3.0 to 2.2 (T2) L/min. The percentage error was 51.7% (T1) and 49.3% (T2). Conversely, COMC/P resulted in agreement with echocardiography: r2 = 0.76 (T1) and 0.80 (T2); bias -0.01 (T1) and -0.06 (T2) L/min; limits of agreement from -1.13 to 1.11 (T1) and from -0.90 to 0.80 (T2) L/min, with a PE of 22.4% (T1) and of 17.0% (T2). Conclusions In patients undergoing vascular surgery, the FloTrac/Vigileo™ did not demonstrate that it was a reliable system for CO monitoring when compared with echocardiography-derived CO. However, MostCare®/PRAM was shown to estimate CO with a good level of agreement with echocardiographic measures.

KW - cardiac output

KW - cardiac output monitors

KW - FloTrac

KW - goal-directed therapy

KW - MostCare

KW - PRAM

KW - pulse contour methods

KW - vascular surgery

KW - Vigileo

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84888290146&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84888290146&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1053/j.jvca.2013.04.017

DO - 10.1053/j.jvca.2013.04.017

M3 - Article

C2 - 24055563

AN - SCOPUS:84888290146

VL - 27

SP - 1114

EP - 1121

JO - Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia

JF - Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia

SN - 1053-0770

IS - 6

ER -