Cardiac Output Monitoring: Validation Studies-how Results Should be Presented
- PMID: 29200975
- PMCID: PMC5696446
- DOI: 10.1007/s40140-017-0239-0
Cardiac Output Monitoring: Validation Studies-how Results Should be Presented
Abstract
Purpose of review: Cardiac output monitors can be assessed by a variety of techniques, but a common principle is quantifying agreement between a reference standard and new monitor. The current standard analysis technique is a Bland-Altman plot. The Bland-Altman plot evaluates bias between mean differences of cardiac output, from which an agreement interval is derived. These limits are, however, statistical limits of agreement and the clinical acceptability will depend upon context and application. This article provides suggestions for understanding and presenting the results of cardiac output validation, using standard metrology alongside proposals for criteria used to accept new techniques.
Recent findings: Confusion about the appropriate way to report "precision" in method comparison studies stem from a lack of clarity on how single or repeated measurements should be interpreted. During serial measurements of cardiac output the true value changes, thus measurement should be considered as serial rather than repeated. Method agreement based upon precision achieved by cardiac output monitors needs to consider each method's general variability around true values obtained and this data should be generated and presented as part of each study design.
Summary: Studies should report serial measurements from two techniques for cardiac output monitoring. Results of similar techniques from other studies may not always be transferred and compared. Bias and intervals of agreement should be presented as Bland-Altman plots with dynamic cardiac output trends in polar plots. Percentage error should be calculated to allow appropriate comparison of techniques for study populations with different expected cardiac output values.
Keywords: Accuracy; Bland-Altman analysis; Cardiac output; Hemodynamic monitoring; Method comparison; Precision.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of Interest
Peter Odor declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Sohail Bampoe declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Maurizio Cecconi has received research support through a grant from Edwards Lifesciences; has received compensation for service as a consultant from Edwards Lifesciences, LiDCO and Cheetah; and has served as a medical advisor to Directed Systems.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Cardiac output method comparison studies: the relation of the precision of agreement and the precision of method.J Clin Monit Comput. 2016 Apr;30(2):149-55. doi: 10.1007/s10877-015-9711-x. Epub 2015 May 31. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016. PMID: 26026648
-
The Ability of esCCO and ECOM Monitors to Measure Trends in Cardiac Output During Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver After Cardiac Surgery: A Comparison with the Pulmonary Thermodilution Method.Anesth Analg. 2015 Aug;121(2):383-91. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000753. Anesth Analg. 2015. PMID: 25902321
-
A critical review of the ability of continuous cardiac output monitors to measure trends in cardiac output.Anesth Analg. 2010 Nov;111(5):1180-92. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181f08a5b. Epub 2010 Aug 24. Anesth Analg. 2010. PMID: 20736431 Review.
-
Accuracy of Estimated Continuous Cardiac Output Monitoring (esCCO) Using Pulse Wave Transit Time (PWTT) Compared to Arterial Pressure-based CO (APCO) Measurement during Major Surgeries.Indian J Crit Care Med. 2022 Summer;26(4):496-500. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24158. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2022. PMID: 35656042 Free PMC article.
-
Bench-to-bedside review: the importance of the precision of the reference technique in method comparison studies--with specific reference to the measurement of cardiac output.Crit Care. 2009;13(1):201. doi: 10.1186/cc7129. Epub 2009 Jan 13. Crit Care. 2009. PMID: 19183431 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
An Effective Method of Detecting Characteristic Points of Impedance Cardiogram Verified in the Clinical Pilot Study.Sensors (Basel). 2022 Dec 15;22(24):9872. doi: 10.3390/s22249872. Sensors (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36560238 Free PMC article.
-
New Advances in Monitoring Cardiac Output in Circulatory Mechanical Assistance Devices. A Validation Study in a Porcine Model.Front Physiol. 2021 Mar 4;12:634779. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.634779. eCollection 2021. Front Physiol. 2021. PMID: 33746776 Free PMC article.
-
Predicting VO2max in competitive cyclists: Is the FRIEND equation the optimal choice?Front Physiol. 2023 Feb 6;14:987006. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2023.987006. eCollection 2023. Front Physiol. 2023. PMID: 36814482 Free PMC article.
-
Toward Personalized Orthopedic Care: Validation of a Smart Knee Brace.Digit Biomark. 2024 Apr 23;8(1):75-82. doi: 10.1159/000538487. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec. Digit Biomark. 2024. PMID: 38655376 Free PMC article.
-
Are single-lumen 5Fr and triple-lumen 6Fr PICCs suitable for hemodynamic assessment by trans-pulmonary thermodilution? A pilot study.Ann Intensive Care. 2020 Dec 7;10(1):165. doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00785-2. Ann Intensive Care. 2020. PMID: 33284392 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Scolletta S, Franchi F, Romagnoli S, Carlà R, Donati A, Fabbri LP, et al. Pulse wave analysis cardiac output validation (PulseCOval) group. Comparison between Doppler-echocardiography and uncalibrated pulse contour method for cardiac output measurement: a multicenter observational study. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(7):1370–1379. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001663. - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials