Con: the FloTrac device should not be used to follow cardiac output in cardiac surgical patients

Evaluation of the use of the fourth version FloTrac system in cardiac output measurement before and after cardiopulmonary bypass

The FloTrac system is a system for cardiac output (CO) measurement that is less invasive than the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC). The purposes of this study were to (1) compare the level of agreement and trending abilities of CO values measured using the fourth version of the FloTrac system (CCO-FloTrac) and PAC-originated continuous thermodilution (CCO-PAC) and (2) analyze the inadequate CO-discriminating ability of the FloTrac system before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Fifty patients were included. After exclusion, 32 patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB were analyzed. All patients were monitored with a PAC and radial artery catheter connected to the FloTrac system. CO was assessed at 10 timing points during the surgery. In the Bland-Altman analysis, the percentage errors (bias, the limits of agreement) of the CCO-FloTrac were 61.82% (0.16, - 2.15 to 2.47 L min) and 51.80% (0.48, - 1.97 to 2.94 L min) before and after CPB, respectively, compared with CCO-PAC. The concordance rates in the four-quadrant plot were 64.10 and 62.16% and the angular concordance rates (angular mean bias, the radial limits of agreement) in the polar-plot analysis were 30.00% (17.62°, - 70.69° to 105.93°) and 38.63% (- 10.04°, - 96.73° to 76.30°) before and after CPB, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for CCO-FloTrac was 0.56, 0.52, 0.52, and 0.72 for all, ≥ ± 5, ≥ ± 10, and ≥ ± 15% CO changes (ΔCO) of CCO-PAC before CPB, respectively, and 0.59, 0.55, 0.49, and 0.46 for all, ≥ ± 5, ≥ ± 10, and ≥ ± 15% ΔCO of CCO-PAC after CPB, respectively. When CO < 4 L/min was considered inadequate, the Cohen κ coefficient was 0.355 and 0.373 before and after CPB, respectively. The accuracy, trending ability, and inadequate CO-discriminating ability of the fourth version of the FloTrac system in CO monitoring are not statistically acceptable in cardiac surgery.

Semi-invasive measurement of cardiac output based on pulse contour: a review and analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this review was to provide a meta-analysis of all five of the most popular systems for arterial pulse contour analysis compared with pulmonary artery thermodilution, the established reference method for measuring cardiac output (CO). The five investigated systems are FloTrac/Vigileo(®), PiCCO(®), LiDCO/PulseCO(®), PRAM/MostCare(®), and Modelflow.

SOURCE

In a comprehensive literature search through MEDLINE(®), Web of Knowledge (v.5.11), and Google Scholar, we identified prospective studies and reviews that compared the pulse contour approach with the reference method (n = 316). Data extracted from the 93 selected studies included range and mean cardiac output, bias, percentage error, software versions, and study population. We performed a pooled weighted analysis of their precision in determining CO in various patient groups and clinical settings.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Results of the majority of studies indicate that the five investigated systems show acceptable accuracy during hemodynamically stable conditions. Forty-three studies provided adequate data for a pooled weighted analysis and resulted in a mean (SD) total pooled bias of -0.28 (1.25) L·min(-1), percentage error of 40%, and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.71. In hemodynamically unstable patients (n = 8), we found a higher percentage error (45%) and bias of -0.54 (1.64) L·min(-1).

CONCLUSION

During hemodynamic instability, CO measurement based on continuous arterial pulse contour analysis shows only limited agreement with intermittent bolus thermodilution. The calibrated systems seem to deliver more accurate measurements than the auto-calibrated or the non-calibrated systems. For reliable use of these semi-invasive systems, especially for critical therapeutic decisions during hemodynamic disorders, both a strategy for hemodynamic optimization and further technological improvements are necessary.

Evaluation of Stroke Volume Variation Obtained by the FloTrac™/Vigileo™ System to Guide Preoperative Fluid Therapy in Patients Undergoing Brain Surgery

OBJECTIVE: The accuracy of stroke volume variation (SVV) obtained by the FloTrac™/Vigileo™ system in otherwise healthy patients undergoing brain surgery was assessed. METHODS: Anaesthesia was induced in 48 patients with minimal fluid infusion. Before surgery, fluid volume loading was performed by infusion with Ringer's lactate solution in 200 ml steps over 3 min, repeated successively if the patient responded with an increase in stroke volume of ≥ 10%, until the increase was < 10% (nonresponsive). RESULTS: A total of 157 volume loading steps were performed in the 48 patients. Responsive and nonresponsive steps differed significantly in baseline values of blood pressure, heart rate and SVV. Significant correlations were found between the change in stroke volume after fluid loading and values of blood pressure, heart rate and SVV before fluid loading, with SVV the most sensitive variable. CONCLUSION: Stroke volume variation obtained using the FloTrac™/Vigileo™ system is a sensitive predictor of fluid responsiveness in healthy patients before brain surgery.