Publication: Are noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring interchangeable with esophageal doppler?
Issued Date
2020-06-01
Resource Type
ISSN
01252208
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85089115969
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. Vol.103, No.6 (2020), 541-547
Suggested Citation
C. Pisitsak, P. Luetrakool, M. Pisalayon, T. Thamjamrassri Are noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring interchangeable with esophageal doppler?. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. Vol.103, No.6 (2020), 541-547. doi:10.35755/jmedassocthai.2020.06.10413 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/58136
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Are noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring interchangeable with esophageal doppler?
Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
© 2020 Medical Association of Thailand. All rights reserved. Objective: To compare the trending ability, accuracy, and precision of non-invasive stroke volume (SV) measurement based on a bioreactance technique and measurement of the pulse wave transit time (PWTT) versus the esophageal Doppler monitoring (EDM). Materials and Methods: Two hundred twenty-seven paired measurements from 10 patients who underwent abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were included for SV measurements. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated, and Bland-Altman analysis was performed to evaluate the agreement between EDM and bioreactance (EDM-bioreactance) and between EDM and PWTT (EDM-PWTT). Results: EDM-bioreactance had a correlation coefficient of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62 to 0.78; p<0.001), bias of 0.28 ml (limits of agreement -30.92 to 31.38 ml), and percentage error of 46.82%. EDM-PWTT had a correlation coefficient of 0.48 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.72; p<0.001), bias of -0.18 ml (limits of agreement -40.28 to 39.92 ml), and percentage error of 60.17%. A subgroup analysis of data from patients who underwent crystalloid loading was performed to detect the trending ability. The four-quadrant plot analysis between EDM-bioreactance and EDM-PWTT demonstrated concordance rates of 70.00% and 73.68%, respectively. Conclusion: SV measurement based on bioreactance technique and measurement of PWTT are not interchangeable with EDM.