Original Article
Comparison of ultrasonic cardiac output monitor and pulse indicated continuous cardiac output monitor on determination of hemodynamic parameters in critical patients
Liu Zhang, Fengxue Zhu, Youzhong An
Published 2016-09-10
Cite as Chin Crit Care Med, 2016, 28(9): 796-800. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2016.09.006
Abstract
ObjectiveTo evaluate the difference and correlation between ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) and pulse indicated continuous cardiac output (PiCCO) monitor on determination of hemodynamic parameters in critical patients.
MethodsA prospective observation self-control study was conducted. The critical patients who need hemodynamics monitoring, and admitted to Department of Critical Care Medicine of Peking University People's Hospital from March 2013 to December 2015 were enrolled. Cardiac output (CO), cardiac index (CI), stroke volume (SV), and stroke index (SI) were determined by PiCCO using thermodilution method at immediately (0 hour) and 24 hours after successful location of PiCCO catheter for 3 times then the above indexes were measured with USCOM, and the average values were chosen for statistical analysis. The differences in above parameters between the two methods, and the correlation of the parameters monitored by two methods were evaluated by Pearson linear correlation method, the consistency test was conducted by Bland-Altman method.
ResultsIn 31 critical patients enrolled, there were 18 males and 13 females, aging 29-89 years old with the mean of (48.1±36.3) years, body mass of (68.7±17.5) kg, and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ (APACHEⅡ) score of 21.2±3.1. CO, CI, SV, and SI detected by USCOM were significantly higher than those detected by PiCCO [CO (L/min): 6.32±1.98 vs. 5.86±1.72, t = 4.887, P = 0.000; CI (mL·s-1·m-2): 61.68±20.17 vs. 56.84±17.34, t = 5.189, P = 0.000; SV (mL): 61.9±19.7 vs. 57.0±16.9, t = 3.977, P = 0.000; SI (mL/m2): 36.84±12.67 vs. 33.33±10.79, t = 4.278, P = 0.000]. It was shown by correlation analysis that CO, CI, SV, and SI monitored by USCOM and PiCCO was positively correlated (R2 value was 0.795, 0.798, 0.837, and 0.827, respectively, all P = 0.000). It was shown by Bland-Altman analysis that the mean CO change (ΔCO) from 0 hour to 24 hours was 0.1 L/min, and the 95% confidence interval was -0.62 to 0.80.
ConclusionThere was significant difference in the comparison of hemodynamics parameters monitored by USCOM and PiCCO respectively in critical patients, the overall values monitored by USCOM were higher than those monitored by PiCCO monitoring, but the correlations were good.
Key words:
Ultrasonic cardiac output monitor; Pulse indicated continuous cardiac output monitor; Hemodynamics; Cardiac output
Contributor Information
Liu Zhang
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, China
Fengxue Zhu
Youzhong An
