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
. 2014 Apr;29(2):260-4.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2013.11.003. Epub 2013 Nov 7.

Thermodilution vs pressure recording analytical method in hemodynamic stabilized patients

Abele Donati  1 , Andrea Carsetti  2 , Stefania Tondi  2 , Claudia Scorcella  2 , Roberta Domizi  2 , Elisa Damiani  2 , Vincenzo Gabbanelli  2 , Christopher Münch  3 , Erica Adrario  2 , Paolo Pelaia  2 , Maurizio Cecconi  4
Affiliations

Thermodilution vs pressure recording analytical method in hemodynamic stabilized patients

Abele Donati et al. J Crit Care. 2014 Apr.

Abstract

Purpose: Many mini-invasive devices to monitor cardiac output (CO) have been introduced and, among them, the pressure recording analytical method (PRAM). The aim of this study was to assess the agreement of PRAM with the intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution and continuous pulmonary thermodilution in measuring CO in hemodynamically stabilized patients.

Materials and methods: This is a prospective clinical study in a mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) and in a postcardiac surgical ICU. Forty-eight patients were enrolled: 32 patients to the medical-surgical ICU monitored with PiCCO (Pulsion Medical System AG, Munich, Germany) and 16 were cardiac patients monitored with Vigilance (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA).

Results: A total of 112 measurements were made. Ninety-six comparisons of paired CO measurements were made in patients hospitalized in medical-surgical ICU; 16, in cardiac surgical patients. The mean Vigilance-CO was 4.49 ± 0.99 L/min (range, 2.80-5.90 L/min), and the mean PRAM-CO was 4.27 ± 0.88 L/min (range, 2.85-6.19 L/min). The correlation coefficient between Vigilance-CO and PRAM-CO was 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.94; P < .001). The bias was 0.22 ± 0.55 L/min with limits of agreement between 0.87 and 1.30 L/min. The percentage error was 25%. Mean TP-CO was 6.78 ± 2.04 L/min (range, 4.12-11.27 L/min), and the mean PRAM-CO was 6.11 ± 2.18 L/min (range, 2.82-10.90 L/min). The correlation coefficient between PiCCO-CO and PRAM-CO was 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.96; P < .0001). The bias was 0.67 ± 0.89 L/min with limits of agreement -1.07 and 2.41 L/min. The coefficient of variation for PiCCO was 4% ± 2%, and the coefficient of variation for PRAM was 10% ± 8%. The percentage error was 28%.

Conclusions: The PRAM system showed good agreement with pulmonary artery catheter and PiCCO in hemodynamically stabilized patients.

Keywords: Cardiac output; Hemodynamic monitoring; Pressure recording analytical method; Thermodilution.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources