Validation of radial artery-based uncalibrated pulse contour method (PulsioFlex) in critically ill patients: A observational study

Early Autocalibrated Arterial Waveform Analysis for the Management of Burn Shock-A Cohort Study

Adequate fluid therapy is crucial for resuscitation after major burns. To adapt this to individual patient demands, standard is adjustment of volume to laboratory parameters and values of enhanced hemodynamic monitoring. To implement calibrated parameters, patients must have reached the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this study was, to evaluate the use of an auto-calibrated enhanced hemodynamic monitoring device to improve fluid management before admission to ICU. We used PulsioflexProAqt® (Getinge) during initial treatment and burn shock resuscitation. Analysis was performed regarding time of measurement, volume management, organ dysfunction, and mortality. We conducted a monocentre, prospective cohort study of 20 severely burned patients, >20% total body surface area (TBSA), receiving monitoring immediately after admission. We compared to 57 patients, matched in terms of TBSA, age, sex, and existence of inhalation injury out of a retrospective control group, who received standard care. Hemodynamic measurement with autocalibrated monitoring started significantly earlier: 3.75(2.67-6.0) hours (h) after trauma in the study group versus 13.6(8.1-17.5) h in the control group (P < .001). Study group received less fluid after 6 h: 1.7(1.2-2.2) versus 2.3(1.6-2.8) ml/TBSA%/kg, P = .043 and 12 h: 3.0(2.5-4.0) versus 4.2(3.1-5.0) ml/TBSA%/kg, P = .047. Dosage of norepinephrine was higher after 18 h in the study group: 0.20(0.12-0.3) versus 0.08(0.02-0.18) µg/kg/min, P = .014. The study group showed no adult respiratory distress syndrome versus 21% in the control group, P = .031. There was no difference in other organ failures, organ replacement therapy, and mortality. The use of auto-calibrated enhanced hemodynamic monitoring is a fast and feasible way to guide early fluid therapy after burn trauma. It reduces the time to reach information about patient's volume capacity. Management of fluid application changed to a more restrictive fluid use in the early period of burn shock and led to a reduction of pulmonary complications.

Complex Heart-Lung Ventilator Emergencies in the CICU

This review aims to enhance the comprehension and management of cardiopulmonary interactions in critically ill patients with cardiovascular disease undergoing mechanical ventilation. Highlighting the significance of maintaining a delicate balance, this article emphasizes the crucial role of adjusting ventilation parameters based on both invasive and noninvasive monitoring. It provides recommendations for the induction and liberation from mechanical ventilation. Special attention is given to the identification of auto-PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure) and other situations that may impact hemodynamics and patients' outcomes.

Comparison of Bioimpedance Versus Pulse Contour Analysis for Intraoperative Cardiac Index Monitoring in Patients Undergoing Kidney Transplantation

Background

Cardiac index (CI; cardiac output indexed to body surface area) is routinely measured during kidney transplant surgery. Bioimpedance cardiometry is a transthoracic impedance as the non-invasive alternative for hemodynamic monitoring, using semi-invasive uncalibrated pulse wave or contour (UPC) analysis.

Objectives

We performed a cross-sectional observational study on 50 kidney transplant patients to compare the CI measurement agreement, concordance rate, and trending ability between bioimpedance and UPC analysis.

Methods

For each patient, CI was measured by bioimpedance analysis (ICON^TM) and UPC analysis (EV1000^TM) devices at three time points: after induction, during incision, and at reperfusion. The device measurement accuracy was assessed by the bias value, limit of agreement (LoA), and percentage error (PE) using Bland-Altman analyses. Trending ability was assessed by angular bias and polar concordance through four-quadrant and polar plot analyses.

Results

From each time point and pooled measurement, the correlation coefficients were 0.267, 0.327, 0.321, and 0.348. Bland-Altman analyses showed mean bias values of 1.18, 1.06, 1.48, and 1.30, LoA of -1.35 to 3.72, -1.39 to 3.51, -1.07 to 4.04, and -1.17 to 3.78, and PE of 82.21, 78.50, 68.74, and 74.58%, respectively. Polar plot analyses revealed angular bias values of -10.37º, -15.01º, -18.68º, and -12.62º, with radial LoA of 89.79º, 85.86º, 83.38º, and 87.82º, respectively. The four-quadrant plot concordance rates were 70.77, 67.35, 65.90, and 69.79%. These analyses showed poor agreement, weak concordance, and low trending ability of bioimpedance cardiometry to UPC analysis.

Conclusions

Bioimpedance and UPC analysis for CI measurements were not interchangeable in patients undergoing kidney transplant surgery. Cardiac index monitoring using bioimpedance cardiometry during kidney transplantation should be interpreted cautiously because it showed poor reliability due to low accuracy, precision, and trending ability for CI measurement.

Four different methods of measuring cardiac index during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

Background

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are high-risk extensive abdominal surgery. During high-risk surgery, less invasive methods for cardiac index (CI) measurement have been widely used in operating theater. We investigated the accuracy of CI derived from different methods (FroTrac, ProAQT, ClearSight, and arterial pressure waveform analysis [APWA], from PICCO) and compared them to transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) during CRS and HIPEC in the operative room and intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

Twenty-five patients scheduled for CRS-HIPEC were enrolled. During nine predefined time-points, simultaneous hemodynamic measurements were performed in the operating room and ICU. Absolute and relative changes of CI were analyzed using a Bland-Altman plot, four-quadrant plot, and interchangeability.

Results

The mean bias was −0.1 L/min/m² for ClearSight, ProAQT, and APWA and was −0.2 L/min/m² for FloTrac compared with TPTD. All devices had large limits of agreement (LoA). The percentage of errors and interchangeabilities for ClearSight, FloTrac, ProAQT, and APWA were 50%, 50%, 54%, 36% and 36%, 47%, 40%, 72%, respectively. Trending capabilities expressed as concordance using clinically significant CI changes were −7º ± 39º, −19º ± 38º, −13º ± 41º, and −15º ± 39º. Interchangeability in trending showed low percentages of interchangeable and gray zone data pairs for all devices.

Conclusions

During CRS-HIPEC, ClearSight, FloTrac and ProAQT systems were not able to reliably measure CI compared to TPTD. Reproducibility of changes over time using concordance, angular bias, radial LoA, and interchangeability in trending of all devices was unsatisfactory.

Accuracy and precision of non-invasive cardiac output monitoring by electrical cardiometry: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cardiac output monitoring is used in critically ill and high-risk surgical patients. Intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution and transpulmonary thermodilution, considered the gold standard, are invasive and linked to complications. Therefore, many non-invasive cardiac output devices have been developed and studied. One of those is electrical cardiometry. The results of validation studies are conflicting, which emphasize the need for definitive validation of accuracy and precision. We performed a database search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library of Clinical Trials to identify studies comparing cardiac output measurement by electrical cardiometry and a reference method. Pooled bias, limits of agreement (LoA) and mean percentage error (MPE) were calculated using a random-effects model. A pooled MPE of less than 30% was considered clinically acceptable. A total of 13 studies in adults (620 patients) and 11 studies in pediatrics (603 patients) were included. For adults, pooled bias was 0.03 L min^-1 [95% CI - 0.23; 0.29], LoA - 2.78 to 2.84 L min^-1 and MPE 48.0%. For pediatrics, pooled bias was - 0.02 L min^-1 [95% CI - 0.09; 0.05], LoA - 1.22 to 1.18 L min^-1 and MPE 42.0%. Inter-study heterogeneity was high for both adults (I² = 93%, p < 0.0001) and pediatrics (I² = 86%, p < 0.0001). Despite the low bias for both adults and pediatrics, the MPE was not clinically acceptable. Electrical cardiometry cannot replace thermodilution and transthoracic echocardiography for the measurement of absolute cardiac output values. Future research should explore it's clinical use and indications.

Cardiac Output Monitoring by Pulse Contour Analysis, the Technical Basics of Less-Invasive Techniques

Routine use of cardiac output (CO) monitoring became available with the introduction of the pulmonary artery catheter into clinical practice. Since then, several systems have been developed that allow for a less-invasive CO monitoring. The so-called “non-calibrated pulse contour systems” (PCS) estimate CO based on pulse contour analysis of the arterial waveform, as determined by means of an arterial catheter without additional calibration. The transformation of the arterial waveform signal as a pressure measurement to a CO as a volume per time parameter requires a concise knowledge of the dynamic characteristics of the arterial vasculature. These characteristics cannot be measured non-invasively and must be estimated. Of the four commercially available systems, three use internal databases or nomograms based on patients’ demographic parameters and one uses a complex calculation to derive the necessary parameters from small oscillations of the arterial waveform that change with altered arterial dynamic characteristics. The operator must ensure that the arterial waveform is neither over- nor under-dampened. A fast-flush test of the catheter–transducer system allows for the evaluation of the dynamic response characteristics of the system and its dampening characteristics. Limitations to PCS must be acknowledged, i.e., in intra-aortic balloon-pump therapy or in states of low- or high-systemic vascular resistance where the accuracy is limited. Nevertheless, it has been shown that a perioperative algorithm-based use of PCS may reduce complications. When considering the method of operation and the limitations, the PCS are a helpful component in the armamentarium of the critical care physician.