Is Arterial Pulse Contour Analysis Using Nexfin a New Option in the Noninvasive Measurement of Cardiac Output?—A Pilot Study

Indirect measurement of absolute cardiac output during exercise in simulated altered gravity is highly dependent on the method

PURPOSE

Altered gravity environments introduce cardiovascular changes that may require continuous hemodynamic monitoring in both spaceflight and terrestrial analogs. Conditions in such environments are often prohibitive to direct/invasive methods and therefore, indirect measurement techniques must be used. This study compares two common cardiac measurement techniques used in the human spaceflight domain, pulse contour analysis (PCA-Nexfin) and inert gas rebreathing (IGR-Innocor), in subjects completing ergometer exercise under altered gravity conditions simulated using a tilt paradigm.

METHODS

Seven subjects were tilted to three different angles representing Martian, Lunar, and microgravity conditions in the rostrocaudal direction. They completed a 36-min submaximal cardiovascular exercise protocol in each condition. Hemodynamics were continuously monitored using Nexfin and Innocor.

RESULTS

Linear mixed-effects models revealed a significant bias of [Formula: see text] ml ([Formula: see text]) in stroke volume and [Formula: see text] l/min ([Formula: see text]) in cardiac output, with Nexfin measuring greater than Innocor in both variables. These values are in agreement with a Bland-Altman analysis. The correlation of stroke volume and cardiac output measurements between Nexfin and Innocor were [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text]) and [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text]) respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is a poor agreement in absolute stroke volume and cardiac output values between measurement via PCA (Nexfin) and IGR (Innocor) in subjects who are exercising in simulated altered gravity environments. These results suggest that the chosen measurement method and device greatly impacts absolute measurements of cardiac output. However, there is a good level of agreement between the two devices when measuring relative changes. Either of these devices seem adequate to capture cardiac changes, but should not be solely relied upon for accurate measurement of absolute cardiac output.

[Meta-analyses on measurement precision of non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring technologies in adults]

An ideal non-invasive monitoring system should provide accurate and reproducible measurements of clinically relevant variables that enables clinicians to guide therapy accordingly. The monitor should be rapid, easy to use, readily available at the bedside, operator-independent, cost-effective and should have a minimal risk and side effect profile for patients. An example is the introduction of pulse oximetry, which has become established for non-invasive monitoring of oxygenation worldwide. A corresponding non-invasive monitoring of hemodynamics and perfusion could optimize the anesthesiological treatment to the needs in individual cases. In recent years several non-invasive technologies to monitor hemodynamics in the perioperative setting have been introduced: suprasternal Doppler ultrasound, modified windkessel function, pulse wave transit time, radial artery tonometry, thoracic bioimpedance, endotracheal bioimpedance, bioreactance, and partial CO₂ rebreathing have been tested for monitoring cardiac output or stroke volume. The photoelectric finger blood volume clamp technique and respiratory variation of the plethysmography curve have been assessed for monitoring fluid responsiveness. In this manuscript meta-analyses of non-invasive monitoring technologies were performed when non-invasive monitoring technology and reference technology were comparable. The primary evaluation criterion for all studies screened was a Bland-Altman analysis. Experimental and pediatric studies were excluded, as were all studies without a non-invasive monitoring technique or studies without evaluation of cardiac output/stroke volume or fluid responsiveness. Most studies found an acceptable bias with wide limits of agreement. Thus, most non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring technologies cannot be considered to be equivalent to the respective reference method. Studies testing the impact of non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring technologies as a trend evaluation on outcome, as well as studies evaluating alternatives to the finger for capturing the raw signals for hemodynamic assessment, and, finally, studies evaluating technologies based on a flow time measurement are current topics of clinical research.

Noninvasive Hemodynamic Measurements During Neurosurgical Procedures in Sitting Position

BACKGROUND

Neurosurgical procedures in sitting position need advanced cardiovascular monitoring. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) to measure cardiac output (CO)/cardiac index (CI) and stroke volume (SV), and invasive arterial blood pressure measurements for systolic (ABPsys), diastolic (ABPdiast) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) are established monitoring technologies for these kind of procedures. A noninvasive device for continuous monitoring of blood pressure and CO based on a modified Penaz technique (volume-clamp method) was introduced recently. In the present study the noninvasive blood pressure measurements were compared with invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring, and the noninvasive CO monitoring to TEE measurements.

METHODS

Measurements of blood pressure and CO were performed in 35 patients before/after giving a fluid bolus and a change from supine to sitting position, start of surgery, and repositioning from sitting to supine at the end of surgery. Data pairs from the noninvasive device (Nexfin HD) versus arterial line measurements (ABPsys, ABPdiast, MAP) and versus TEE (CO, CI, SV) were compared using Bland-Altman analysis and percentage error.

RESULTS

All parameters compared (CO, CI, SV, ABPsys, ABPdiast, MAP) showed a large bias and wide limits of agreement. Percentage error was above 30% for all parameters except ABPsys.

CONCLUSION

The noninvasive device based on a modified Penaz technique cannot replace arterial blood pressure monitoring or TEE in anesthetized patients undergoing neurosurgery in sitting position.

Comparison of bioreactance non-invasive cardiac output measurements with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

Impedance cardiography measurement of cardiac output gained wide interest due to its ease of use and non-invasiveness. However, validation studies of different algorithms yielded diverging results. Bioreactance (BR) as a recent adaption differs fundamentally as the flow signal is derived from phase shifts. Our aim was to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of BR, as compared to the non-invasive gold standard--cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). We prospectively included 32 stable patients. BR was performed twice in the supine position and averaged over 30 seconds. Mean bias was 0.2 ± 1.8 l/minute (1 ± 28%, percentage error 55%) with limits of agreement ranging from  -3.4 to 3.7 l/minute. Reproducibility was acceptable with a mean bias of 0.1 ± 0.9 l/minute (1 ± 14%, 27%). Low cardiac output was significantly overestimated (-1.1 ± 1.5 l/minute), while high cardiac output was underestimated (1.5 ± 1.7 l/minute), (P=0.001), although reproducibility was unaffected. Bias and weight were moderately correlated in men (r = 0.50, P=0.02). No differences for accuracy were found in nine patients who had an arrhythmia (0.3 ± 1.4 versus 0.1 ± 2.0 l/minute, P=0.76), while clinically relevant differences were found in patients with mild aortic valve disease (1.9 ± 2.2 versus -0.3 ± 1.7 l/minute, P=0.02). Overall, BR showed insufficient agreement with CMR, overestimating low and underestimating high cardiac output states. Reproducibility was acceptable and not negatively affected by the circulatory condition. Consequently, absolute values acquired with BR should be interpreted with caution and must not be used interchangeably in clinical practice.

The haemodynamic effects of bolus versus slower infusion of intravenous crystalloid in healthy volunteers

PURPOSE

This pilot study aimed to characterise the haemodynamic effect of 1L of IV normal saline (NS) administered as a rapid versus slow infusion on cardiac output (CO), heart rate (HR), systemic blood pressures, and carotid blood flow in six healthy volunteers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six healthy male volunteers aged 18-65years were randomized to receive 1L NS given over 30min or 120min. On a subsequent study session the alternate fluid regimen was administered. Haemodynamic data was gathered using a non-invasive finger arterial pressure monitor (Nexfin®), echocardiography and carotid duplex sonography. Time to micturition and urine volume was also assessed.

RESULTS

Compared to baseline, rapid infusion of 1L of saline over 30min produced a fall in Nexfin®-measured CO by 0.62L/min (p<0.001), whereas there was a marginal but significant increase during infusion of 1L NS over 120min of 0.02L/min (p<0.001). This effect was mirrored by changes in HR and blood pressure (BP) (p<0.001). There were no significant changes in carotid blood flow, time to micturition, or urine volume produced.

CONCLUSIONS

Slower infusion of 1L NS in healthy male volunteers produced a greater increase in CO, HR and BP than rapid infusion.

Assessing Fluid Responsiveness in Spontaneously Breathing Patients

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study was to test if fasting volunteers exhibit fluid responsiveness using noninvasive hemodynamic measurements. The secondary objective was to test a passive leg raise (PLR) maneuver as a diagnostic predictor of fluid responsiveness.

METHODS

This was a quasi-experimental design involving healthy volunteers. Subjects were excluded for pregnancy and congestive heart failure. Following a 12-hour fast, subjects had baseline hemodynamic monitoring recorded using noninvasive, continuous pulse contour analysis. Subjects then had a PLR maneuver performed, followed by an intravenous bolus of crystalloid. A rise in stroke volume ≥ 10% from baseline with the bolus was considered consistent with fluid responsiveness, and the same rise with a PLR was consistent with a positive PLR maneuver. The primary outcome was the change in stroke volume with a fluid bolus. Univariate analysis assessed changes in hemodynamic parameters. Logistic regression analysis determined the test characteristics of the PLR in predicting subjects who were ultimately fluid responsive.

RESULTS

Forty subjects completed the study. The mean change in stroke volume with a crystalloid bolus was 19% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 16% to 21%). Thirty-six (90%) subjects were fluid responsive. The mean PLR response for the overall cohort was 16% (95% CI = 12% to 19%), and 26 (65%) subjects had a positive PLR maneuver. The PLR was 72% sensitive (95% CI = 55% to 85%) and 100% specific (95% CI = 40% to 100%) for predicting the presence of fluid responsiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Noninvasive assessment of fluid responsiveness in healthy volunteers and prediction of this response with a PLR maneuver is achievable. Further work is indicated to test these methods in acutely ill patients.

Non-invasive measurements of pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation in anesthetized patients using the Nexfin blood pressure monitor

Nexfin beat-to-beat arterial blood pressure monitoring enables continuous assessment of hemodynamic indices like cardiac index (CI), pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) in the perioperative setting. In this study we investigated whether Nexfin adequately reflects alterations in these hemodynamic parameters during a provoked fluid shift in anesthetized and mechanically ventilated patients. The study included 54 patients undergoing non-thoracic surgery with positive pressure mechanical ventilation. The provoked fluid shift comprised 15° Trendelenburg positioning, and fluid responsiveness was defined as a concomitant increase in stroke volume (SV) >10 %. Nexfin blood pressure measurements were performed during supine steady state, Trendelenburg and supine repositioning. Hemodynamic parameters included arterial blood pressure (MAP), CI, PPV and SVV. Trendelenburg positioning did not affect MAP or CI, but induced a decrease in PPV and SVV by 3.3 ± 2.8 and 3.4 ± 2.7 %, respectively. PPV and SVV returned back to baseline values after repositioning of the patient to baseline. Bland–Altman analysis of SVV and PPV showed a bias of −0.3 ± 3.0 % with limits of agreement ranging from −5.6 to 6.2 %. The SVV was more superior in predicting fluid responsiveness (AUC 0.728) than the PVV (AUC 0.636), respectively. The median bias between PPV and SVV was different for patients younger [−1.5 % (−3 to 0)] or older [+2 % (0–4.75)] than 55 years (P < 0.001), while there were no gender differences in the bias between PPV and SVV. The Nexfin monitor adequately reflects alterations in PPV and SVV during a provoked fluid shift, but the level of agreement between PPV and SVV was low. The SVV tended to be superior over PPV or Ea_dyn in predicting fluid responsiveness in our population.

Importance of re-calibration time on pulse contour analysis agreement with thermodilution measurements of cardiac output: a retrospective analysis of intensive care unit patients

We assessed the effect of re-calibration time on cardiac output estimation and trending performance in a retrospective analysis of an intensive care unit patient population using error grid analyses. Paired thermodilution and arterial blood pressure waveform measurements (N = 2141) from 222 patient records were extracted from the Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II database. Pulse contour analysis was performed by implementing a previously reported algorithm at calibration times of 1, 2, 8 and 24 h. Cardiac output estimation agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman and error grid analyses. Trending was assessed by concordance and a 4-Quadrant error grid analysis. Error between pulse contour and thermodilution increased with longer calibration times. Limits of agreement were -1.85 to 1.66 L/min for 1 h maximum calibration time compared to -2.70 to 2.41 L/min for 24 h. Error grid analysis resulted in 74.2 % of points bounded by 20 % error limits of thermodilution measurements for 1 h calibration time compared to 65 % for 24 h. 4-Quadrant error grid analysis showed <75 % of changes in pulse contour estimates to be within ±80 % of the change in the thermodilution measurement at any calibration time. Shorter calibration times improved the agreement of cardiac output pulse contour estimates with thermodilution. Use of minimally invasive pulse contour methods in intensive care monitoring could benefit from prospective studies evaluating calibration protocols. The applied pulse contour analysis method and thermodilution showed poor agreement to monitor changes in cardiac output.