Perforation of the left ventricle wall due to the insertion of a pulmonary artery catheter. A case report

A comparison of hemodynamic measurement methods during orthotopic liver transplantation: evaluating agreement and trending ability of PiCCO versus pulmonary artery catheter techniques

BACKGROUND

Significant hemodynamic changes occur during liver transplantation, emphasizing the importance of precious and continuous monitoring of cardiac output, cardiac index, and other parameters. Although the monitoring of cardiac output by pulse indicator continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) was statistically homogeneous compared to the clinical gold standard pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) in previous studies of liver transplantation, there are fewer statistical methods for the assessment of its conclusions, and a lack of comparisons of other hemodynamic parameters (e.g., SVRI, systemic vascular resistance index). Some studies have also concluded that the agreement between PiCCO and PAC is not good enough. Overall, there are no uniform conclusions regarding the agreement between PiCCO and PAC in previous studies. This study evaluates the agreement and trending ability of relevant hemodynamic parameters obtained with PiCCO compared to the clinical gold standard PAC from multiple perspectives, employing various statistical methods.

METHODS

Fifty-two liver transplantation patients were included. Cardiac output (CO), cardiac index (CI), SVRI and stroke volume index (SVI) values were monitored at eight time points using both PiCCO and PAC. The results were analyzed by Bland-Altman analysis, Passing-bablok regression, intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), 4-quadrant plot, polar plot, and trend interchangeability method (TIM).

RESULTS

The Bland-Altman analysis revealed high percentage errors for PiCCO: 54.06% for CO, 52.70% for CI, 62.18% for SVRI, and 51.97% for SVI, indicating poor accuracy. While Passing-Bablok plots showed favorable agreement for SVRI overall and during various phases, the agreement for other parameters was less satisfactory. The ICC results confirmed good overall agreement between the two devices across most parameters, except for SVRI during the new liver phase, which showed poor agreement. Additionally, four-quadrant and polar plot analyses indicated that all agreement rate values fell below the clinically acceptable threshold of over 90%, and all angular deviation values exceeded ± 5°, demonstrating that PiCCO is unable to meet the acceptable trends. Using the TIM, the interchangeability rates were found to be quite low: 20% for CO and CI, 16% for SVRI, and 13% for SVI.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed notable disparities in absolute values of CO, CI, SVRI and SVI between PiCCO and PAC in intraoperative liver transplant settings, notably during the neohepatic phase where errors were particularly pronounced. Consequently, these findings highlight the need for careful consideration of PiCCO's advantages and disadvantages in liver transplantation scenarios, including its multiple parameters (such as the encompassing extravascular lung water index), against its limited correlation with PAC.

Malposition of a pulmonary artery catheter in the left ventricle: a case report

BACKGROUND

Placement of pulmonary artery catheters may be associated with a variety of complications. We present a case where a pulmonary artery catheter was accidentally advanced into the left ventricle by perforating the intraventricular septum.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 73-year-old woman underwent mitral valve dysfunction. A pulmonary artery catheter could not pass the tricuspid valve under general anesthesia, which was manually advanced via the right ventricle during surgery. After valve replacement, systolic pulmonary artery pressure was higher than radial arterial blood pressure. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) revealed the tip of the catheter in the left ventricle. The catheter was withdrawn and then advanced to the pulmonary artery under monitoring of TEE. Transseptal shunt flow gradually decreased and finally disappeared. The surgery was completed without additional procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ventricular septal perforation is rare, it should be recognized as a potential complication of pulmonary artery catheter insertion.

Cardiac output monitoring with pulmonary versus trans-cardiopulmonary thermodilution in left ventricular assist devices: Interchangeable methods?

Cardiac output (CO) measurement is mandatory in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Thermodilution with pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) remains the clinical gold standard to measure CO in these patients, however it is associated with several complications. Therefore, the agreement between PAC and new, minimally invasive monitoring methods in LVAD needs to be further investigated. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy and reliability of transpulmonary thermodilution with a PiCCO2 monitor compared with pulmonary artery thermodilution with PAC in a LVAD. Continuous-flow LVADs were implanted in six mini-pigs to assist the left ventricle. We studied two methods of measuring CO—intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution (CO_TPTD) by PiCCO2 and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution by CAP, standard technique (CO_PTD)—obtained in four consecutive moments of the study: before starting the LVAD (basal moment), and with the LVAD started in normovolemia, hypervolemia (fluid overloading) and hypovolemia (shock hemorrhage). A total of 72 paired measurements were analysed. At the basal moment, CO_TPTD and CO_PTD were closely correlated (r² = 0.89), with a mean bias of −0.085 ± 0.245 L/min and percentage error of 16%. After 15 min of partial support LVAD, CO_TPTD and CO_PTD were closely correlated (r² = 0.79), with a mean bias of −0.040 ± 0.417 L/min and percentage error of 26%. After inducing hypervolemia, CO_TPTD and CO_PTD were closely correlated (r² = 0.78), with a mean bias of −0.093 ± 0.339 L/min and percentage error of 13%. After inducing hypovolemia, CO_TPTD and CO_PTD were closely correlated (r² = 0.76), with a mean bias of −0.045 ± 0.281 L/min and percentage error of 28%. This study demonstrates a good agreement between transpulmonary thermodilution by PiCCO monitor and pulmonary thermodilution by PAC in the intermittent measurement of CO in a porcine model with a continuous-flow LVAD.