Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2011 Apr;106(4):475-81.
doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq372. Epub 2010 Dec 31.

Lack of agreement between pulmonary arterial thermodilution cardiac output and the pressure recording analytical method in postoperative cardiac surgery patients

H Paarmann  1 , H V Groesdonk, B Sedemund-Adib, T Hanke, H Heinze, M Heringlake, J Schön
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Lack of agreement between pulmonary arterial thermodilution cardiac output and the pressure recording analytical method in postoperative cardiac surgery patients

H Paarmann et al. Br J Anaesth. 2011 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Pulse-contour analysis method (PCM) cardiac output (CO) monitors are increasingly used for CO monitoring during anaesthesia and in the critically ill. Very recently, several systems have been introduced that do not need calibration; among them the pressure recording analytical method (PRAM). Sparse data comparing the accuracy of the PRAM-CO with conventional thermodilution CO (ThD-CO) in cardiac surgery patients are available.

Methods: In this prospective comparison study, paired CO measurements with a pulmonary artery catheter and a PRAM monitoring set were obtained 20-30 min apart (t1, t2) in 23 extubated patients on the first postoperative day after cardiac surgery. Data were analysed by the Bland-Altman method.

Results: A total of 46 paired CO measurements (23 for each interval) were collected. The Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference (bias) of 0.0 litre min(-1) and limits of agreement (1.96 sd) of 4.53 to -4.54 litre min(-1) [upper 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.26-5.80; lower 95% CI, -5.8 to -3.27]. The percentage error (1.96 sd/mean of the reference method) was 87%.

Conclusions: These results question the reliability of the PRAM technology for the determination of CO in postoperative cardiac surgery patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types