Abstract
Although cardiac output (CO) by pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) has been an important guideline in clinical management for more than four decades, some studies have questioned the clinical efficacy of CO in certain patient populations. Further, the use of CO by PAC has been linked to numerous complications including dysrhythmia, infection, rupture of pulmonary artery, injury to adjacent arteries, embolization, pulmonary infarction, cardiac valvular damage, pericardial effusion, and intracardiac catheter knotting. The use of PAC has been steadily declining over the past two decades. Minimally invasive and noninvasive CO monitoring have been studied in the past two decades with some evidence of efficacy. Several different devices based on pulse contour analysis are available currently, including the uncalibrated FloTrac/Vigileo system and the calibrated PiCCO and LiDCO systems. The pressure-recording analytical method (PRAM) system requires only an arterial line and is commercially available as the MostCare system. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) can measure CO by non-Doppler- or Doppler-based methods. The partial CO2 rebreathing technique, another method to measure CO, is marketed by Novametrix Medical Systems as the NICO system. Thoracic electrical bioimpedance (TEB) and electric bioreactance (EB) are totally noninvasive CO monitoring. Nexfin HD and the newer ClearSight systems are examples of noninvasive CO monitoring devices currently being marketed by Edwards Lifesciences. The developing focus in CO monitoring devices appears to be shifting to tissue perfusion and microcirculatory flow and aimed more at markers that indicate the effectiveness of circulatory and microcirculatory resuscitations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Cardiac output (CO) measurement has been considered one of the most important elements of perioperative hemodynamic monitoring in modern medicine ever since balloon-tip pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) was introduced by Drs. Swan and Ganz in 1970 [1]. Perioperatively, PAC has been commonly used in major cardiothoracic surgery, in patients with significant coexisting cardiovascular diseases undergoing non-cardiovascular procedures, and other critically ill patients [2]. For the past four decades, PAC has been considered the “gold standard” in CO measurement. However, it has been controversial whether the utilization of PAC-derived parameters to guide the clinical management of critically ill patients improves clinical outcomes [3–7]. Clinicians worldwide have witnessed a gradual transition from the invasive PAC-thermodilution (TD) technique to less invasive techniques during the past decade [8]. This review is aimed at providing updates of the emerging and currently available minimally invasive and noninvasive techniques for the measurement of CO. The characteristics, indications, contraindications, and typical limitations of these different devices are also discussed.
CO measurement and pulmonary artery catheter
In 1870, Dr. Adolf Fick discovered a method of computing an animal’s CO based on the oxygen consumption and the difference in oxygen content between arterial and venous blood (Eq. 1) [9]:
where VO2 = oxygen consumption per minute, CaO2 = arterial oxygen content, and CvO2 = mixed venous oxygen content.
In 1893, George Stewart developed an indicator-dilution technique, using hypertonic saline as an indicator, to determine CO [10]. Based on Stewart’s work, William Hamilton used indocyanine green as the indicator, instead of saline, to measure the variation of concentrations over time in human circulation. CO is equal to the quantity of dye injected divided by the area under the time–concentration curve (Fig. 1; Eq. 2) [11].
where C 0 = initial concentration of injector, V 0 = initial volume of injector, and the denominator = the integral of indicator concentration over time.
The application of Fick’s principle for the measurement of CO was not possible in humans until Dr. Werner Forssman developed a technique to sample mixed venous blood from the pulmonary artery in 1929 [11]. However, widespread clinical use of CO measurement became practical only after the balloon-tipped PAC was introduced by Drs. Swan and Ganz in 1970 [1]. Obviously, PAC is invasive because it involves inserting a large-bore multi-lumen catheter from the internal jugular or subclavian vein to the pulmonary artery, going through two cardiac chambers and two cardiac valves. Its application has been associated with numerous complications (Table 1) [12, 13]. Beyond the complications associated with PAC placement, the efficacy and clinical benefit of PAC are questionable. Numerous studies indicated PAC lacks positive benefits in clinical outcomes [5, 7, 14, 15], and some studies even demonstrated an increase in hospital mortality [3, 4, 16]. However, these studies showed an improvement in mortality in surgical, critically ill, and septic patients [17, 18]. Thus, PAC may still have a role in some specific conditions such as right ventricular failure, pulmonary hypertension requiring vasodilator therapy, or septic patients [19]. For the aforementioned reasons, the clinical application of PAC has been noticed to experience a steady decline during the past decade. In the meantime, the race to develop alternative technology to replace PAC has been leaping forward [20]. Currently, there are some less invasive techniques already on the market. An ideal CO measurement should have the following features: advanced and comprehensive, minimally/noninvasive, continuous, and reliable hemodynamic assessment, and be user friendly with minimal complication and ultimately improved outcome. Unfortunately, none of the current techniques yet meets all these criteria. In regard to acceptable precision of an alternative new development, Critchley and Critchley defined a cut-off value of 30 % agreement with current technology to be acceptable [21].
Minimally invasive CO monitoring
Arterial contour analysis
The idea that stroke volume (SV) can be derived from pulse pressure (PP) was observed by Erlanger and Hooker [22]. Currently, there are several different devices based on pulse contour analysis, including the uncalibrated FloTrac/Vigileo system (Edwards Lifesciences) [20] and the calibrated systems including PiCCO (PULSION Medical Systems) and LiDCO (London, UK) [22].
FloTrac/Vigileo: a noncalibrated arterial contour analysis technique
The technique and its mechanism
The FloTrac/Vigileo system was first introduced by Edwards Lifesciences in 2005 [23]. It has a blood flow sensor (FloTrac) connecting to an arterial line and Vigileo monitor. The system provides a display of CO, SV, stroke volume variation (SVV), and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) without requiring external calibration [20]. The basic principle is based on the linear relationship between PP and SV (Eq. 3) [24]:
where SDAP = the standard deviation of the data points and reflects PP (Fig. 2a), and factor χ = the conversion factor that depends on arterial compliance (assessed by gender, age, height, weight), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and waveform characteristics. In the third-generation FloTrac/Vigileo, factor χ is calculated every minute [21], whereas in the fourth- generation device it is calculated every 20 s [20].
Advantages and limitations
The FloTrac system is less invasive, provides continuous CO monitoring, and is relatively easy to use. However, its accuracy is limited in unstable patients, patients with severe arrhythmia, severe aortic valve regurgitation, and other factors disturbing the arterial waveform [25]. Because the FloTrac/Vigileo system does not require external calibration, the accuracy and precision may be slightly decreased when compared with the calibrated system in some conditions [22, 23, 26]. Hence, in patients with hemodynamic instability, the calibrated device may offer an advantage over the uncalibrated devices [24].
Validity studies
The FloTrac system has released three different versions of software. The third-generation software is improved in accuracy as it relies on a much larger dataset, including larger proportions of hyperdynamic and vasoplegic patients [27]. In septic patients and cardiac surgery patients, an acceptable agreement of the third-generation FloTrac system and PAC was established [27, 28], with a percentage error of 29 % and 20 %, respectively. In the perioperative period, the third-generation FloTrac system was able to track changes in CO induced by fluid preload [29]. A study by Slagt et al. found the ability to perform CO measurement in normodynamic or hypodynamic conditions but not in hyperdynamic CO status [30]. One meta-analysis study supported the use of the FloTrac system if used with consideration of its limitations [25]. However, the use of third-generation software was inaccurate in patients with low SVR [31–33], those using high doses of vasopressor therapy [34, 35], during liver transplantation surgery [33], and during cardiac surgery [36]. Therefore, some studies suggested even the third-generation software may still not be the replacement of PAC [37]. To overcome the limitations, Edward Lifesciences improved the software and released the FloTrac system 4.0 in May 2014 [20]. A study compared CO measurement by FloTrac and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) during abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. The FloTrac system was found not clinically acceptable for use in abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery [38]. In the study by Mutoh et al., CO measured by the third-generation FloTrac system was lower when compared to the PiCCO system during hyperdynamic therapy with dobutamine for reversing delayed cerebral ischemia [39].
PiCCO monitor (Pulse Medical System, Munich, Germany)
The technique and its mechanism
The PiCCO system was approved for clinical use in 2000. PiCCO applies a special algorithm that combines real-time continuous monitoring through pulse contour analysis with intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) measurement (Fig. 3). PiCCO provides almost all the same hemodynamic parameters as other techniques [40]. The PiCCO system calculates CO by Eq. 4 [41].
where cal = calibration factor derived from TPTD, HR = heart rate, \(\int\nolimits_{\text{systole}} { = {\text{systolic portion of curve}}}\) (Fig. 2b), P(t) = pressure change over time, SVR = systemic vascular resistance, P(t)/SVR = the area under the arterial pressure curve in systole where SVR is derived from mean arterial pressure/CO, C(p) = aortic compliance, and dP/dt = shape of the arterial waveform [41].
PiCCO arterial contour analysis uses the TPTD technique as an external calibration. The calibration interval is recommended to be every 8 h or whenever there is a clinically significant change in SVR. The central line catheterization should be placed in the central cardiopulmonary circulation; a common site is the internal jugular or subclavian vein. Placement in the femoral vein proved to be an alternative choice [42]. An arterial line is typically inserted at the femoral artery, although axillary, brachial, and radial arteries are acceptable alternative choices. In patients under high doses of catecholamine, pressure measurement in the femoral artery would be more advantageous than in the radial artery [43, 44].
Advantages and limitations
The advantages for PiCCO are that it is less invasive and is useful in the pediatric population when a PAC is too large to be inserted [45–47]. Moreover, the TPTD method is independent of ventilator and respiratory cycles. Therefore, PiCCO gives consistent and reproducible results. The TPTD method has the unique ability to measure global end-diastolic volume (GEDV) and intrathoracic blood volume (ITBV), which can estimate the cardiac preload [48, 49].
Complications related to PiCCO were few, as reported by Belda et al. The incidence of site inflammation and catheter-related infection were 2 % and 0.78 %, respectively. Other complications were rare [50].
Contraindications to the use of PiCCO can be divided into two categories: contraindications to vascular device insertion (e.g., arterial grafting) and anatomical or physiological derangements that result in inaccurate measurement (e.g., regurgitant valve, intracardiac shunt, extracorporeal circulation).
Validity studies
The PiCCO system was compared to PAC in septic patients and cardiac and lung transplant surgery patients. The results showed satisfactory correlations [51, 52]. In conditions of insignificant changes of SVR, PiCCO was claimed to have 20 % percentage error with a bias of 0.23 l/min [53]. PiCCO was also compared to LiDCO and FloTrac as cross comparison against PAC; the results showed PiCCO and LiDCO measurements were comparable in a clinically acceptable range [54]. PiCCO was compared to Doppler ultrasound in critically ill patients, and good agreement was found with these two techniques [55]. Broch et al. measured CO by PiCCO and ccNexfin during cardiac surgery; a good correlation between them was also found [56]. Moreover, CO monitoring and using ITBV as guidance by the PiCCO system could reduce duration of mechanical ventilation and improve patient outcomes in septic patients [57]. However, some studies revealed large discrepancies between PiCCO and PAC in off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery; the percentage error range can be as great as 32 % to 50 %, depending on the stage of operation [58].
LiDCOplus system (LiDCO, Cambridge, UK)
The technique and its mechanism
The LiDCO system uses lithium as an indicator to determine CO, first described by Linton et al. [59]. This method is based on Stewart–Hamilton principles (Eq. 2). The LiDCOplus system is based on running two proprietary algorithms: an indicator dilution CO monitoring (LiDCO system) and a continuous arterial waveform analysis (PulseCO system). To increase its accuracy, the LiDCO system is used to calibrate the PulseCO system. The LiDCO system consists of a lithium sensor attached to the arterial line. Once lithium is injected into the venous circulation, blood samples from the arterial line are drawn, and a lithium concentration time curve is plotted. The area under the curve will determine CO. The lithium indicator can be injected via either central or peripheral venous access [60]. Thus, LiDCO system requires only an arterial line and a peripheral IV line.
The PulseCO system offers continuous CO monitoring. SV is calculated from the arterial pressure waveform using an autocorrelation algorithm. The volume of the arterial tree in arbitrary units is determined by the root mean square (RMS) method, which is independent of waveform morphology (Fig. 2c). The score value after the RMS method is called nominal SV, which is recalibrated with patient-specific factors to scale an “actual SV.” These factors include the lithium indicator dilution and arterial compliance variations [24]. Therefore, the PulseCO system is recommended to be recalibrated every 8 h or with each major hemodynamic change [24, 61]. The LiDCOplus system provides various parameters including CO, intrathoracic blood volume (ITBV), MAP, SVR, SV, SVV, and pulse pressure variation (PPV) [61]. Recently, LiDCO Company has released “LiDCORapid,” a new monitor that derives SV from the patient’s arterial waveform using the PulseCO algorithm. The LiDCORapid helps optimally guide goal-directed therapy via PPV and SVV analysis.
Advantages and limitations
The advantage of the LiDCOplus system is that it is less invasive than PAC and PiCCO because it needs only an arterial and a peripheral venous access [22, 40]. In addition, the LiDCOplus system can provide special parameters such as SVV or PPV. However, the accuracy of the LiDCOplus system may be compromised under circumstances such as patients with aortic regurgitation, severe arrhythmia, and severe peripheral vasoconstriction, and patients who receive lithium therapy [22, 40].
Contraindications of the LiDCOplus system include the following: (a) conditions related to a patient’s extra lithium intake because this will lead to an overestimate of CO [40]; (b) patients who receive nondepolarizing muscle relaxant, which will interfere with the lithium sensor [62]; (c) other conditions including body weight <40 kg and first trimester of pregnancy [63]; and conditions related to anatomic cardiac abnormalities that lead to compromise in the accuracy of the PulseCO [61], such as patients with aortic valve regurgitation, intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), and poor quality of arterial signal.
Validity studies
Linton et al. compared the CO measurements obtained by LiDCO and PAC thermodilution technique in immediate post-CABG patients. The results showed a good correlation of the two techniques [59]. LiDCO was also compared to PAC in post-liver transplant patients [64], post-cardiac surgery patients [65], and the postpartum period of patients with severe preeclampsia [66]. The results showed a satisfactory correlation between the two techniques. A randomized prospective controlled clinical trial conducted by Pearse et al. also demonstrated a significant reduction in complications and median hospital stay in high-risk surgical patients treated with LiDCOplus-based goal-directed therapy [63]. However, Yamashita et al. showed a poor correlation and large bias of PulseCO during off-pump CABG when compared to the PAC thermodilution technique. They concluded that PulseCO might be unsuitable for off-pump cardiac surgery patients [67]. Cross comparisons of LiDCO, PiCCO, FloTrac, and PAC were also performed. The results indicated LiDCO was the least erroneous compared to other less invasive devices [54]. In OPCAB surgery patients, when hemodynamic parameters as assessed by PAC thermodilution, LiDCOplus, and TEE were compared after fluid challenging, LiDCOplus showed a high sensitivity for assessing intravascular volume [68].
PRAM (pressure-recording analytical method)
The technique and its mechanism
The pressure-recording analytical method (PRAM) is a technique designed for arterial pressure-derived continuous CO measurement with no need for any starting calibration or central venous catheterization. Therefore, PRAM needs only an arterial line as with FloTrac/Vigileo. PRAM technology is based on the principle that, in any given vessel, volume changes occur mainly because of radial expansion in response to pressure variations; simply put, the alterations of the systolic portion of the area under the curve reflect changes in SV [69]. This technique calculates CO using a number of physical parameters, including the force of left ventricular ejection, arterial impedance counteracting the pulsatile blood inflow, arterial compliance, and peripheral small vessel resistance [70]. What differentiates PRAM from other pulse contour analysis technology is that (1) PRAM calculates the area under curve by taking into account both pulsatile and continuous contribution of the physical forces underlying the relationship between pressure curve morphology and blood flow; and (2) the frequency sampling of PRAM is 1000 Hz whereas the other pulse contour methods use 100 Hz [71]. A higher frequency sampling allows a higher degree of precision. PRAM also provides various hemodynamic parameters including CO, SVV, PPV, and SVR.
Advantages and limitations
PRAM is a less invasive technique that offers continuous monitoring of CO and other advanced hemodynamic parameters including SVV and PPV. PRAM can avoid the risk of CVP catheterization and is potentially more advantageous clinically. Although controversial, PRAM could be used for unstable patients with high doses of inotropic drugs and even for patients with IABP with sinus rhythm [72]. However, PRAM has some limitations: some are technically related (over-damping or under-damping of arterial waveforms) and some are patient related, such as inappropriate signal acquisition (e.g., aortic valve regurgitation) or abnormality of the peripheral arteries (e.g., aortic dissection, atherosclerotic plaque) [73, 74].
Validity studies
The accuracy of PRAM has been studied over a wide range of conditions. Giomarelli et al. compared PRAM and PAC thermodilution technique in CABG patients, showing that PRAM is accurate for real-time monitoring of CO during surgery and the immediate postoperative period [75]. Similar results were also reported in unstable patients such as those with an intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) or patients with ongoing infusion of high doses of inotropic agents for low cardiac output syndrome [76]. A recent study in the post-cardiac surgery ICU also found a good agreement of cardiac index measurement between PRAM and PAC thermodilution technique in hemodynamically unstable patients, but not in those with atrial fibrillation [72].To further validate the use of PRAM, Donati et al. compared PRAM, PiCCO, and continuous PAC thermodilution in a mixed medical-surgical ICU. These results also showed a good concordance between PRAM, PAC, and PiCCO in hemodynamically stabilized patients, with percentage errors of 25 % and 28 %, respectively [77]. Romagnoli et al.investigated the utilization of PRAM, FloTrac/Vigileo, and transthoracic echocardiography in patients undergoing vascular surgery and showed PRAM had a good concordance with echocardiographic measurement [69]. However, some studies did show a lack of agreement between PRAM and PAC thermodilution technique in post-cardiac surgery patients [78] and in unstable patients with atrial fibrillation [79].
VolumeView (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA)
VolumeView was introduced in 2010 by Edward Lifesciences. This system consists of a specific thermistor-tipped arterial catheter (the VolumeView catheter) and the EV1000 monitoring platform. It also has a special continuous central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) monitoring via the PreSep oximetry catheter. The VolumeView system determines CO by continuous arterial pressure analysis on the femoral artery and external calibration using the TPTD technique. It provides various parameters, including EVLW, pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI), GEDV, ITBV, a new variable global ejection fraction (GEF), CO, SV, SVV, and SVR [80].The VolumeView was used in a surgical and interdisciplinary ICU and shown to be as reliable as the PiCCO system [81]. However, the technology is not yet fully validated in humans with larger sample size. Future studies would be required to evaluate the impact of the VolumeView system on morbidity and mortality.
Transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD)
The transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) technique has been available for more than 20 years [82]. The PiCCO monitor and VolumeView are the only currently available devices applying the principle. TPTD is based on the Stewart–Hamilton principle and requires only central venous catheterization and arterial line [40]. After a bolus of cold saline (<8 °C) is injected via the central vein catheter, the cold saline is mixed with the blood in the circulation. The relative change in temperature reflects the CO flowing through the cardiovascular system (Fig. 3). A thermistor-tipped catheter is usually placed at a femoral artery or axillary or brachial artery [40, 41].
Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)
The technique and its mechanism
The first transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was introduced in the early 1980s. Since then, TEE has evolved into an almost routinely used monitor and is an indispensable diagnostic tool in cardiovascular surgery [83]. Measurement of SV and CO with TEE can be accomplished by non-Doppler- or Doppler-based methods. However, the Doppler-based method is commonly used in clinical practice [23]. Blood flow is obtained by the Doppler frequency, which reflects the moving red blood cells (Eq. 5; Fig. 4) [23, 84, 85].
where SV = stroke volume, VTI = Doppler velocity–time integral, and CSA = cross-sectional area.
CO measurement can be achieved by placing the TEE probe close to the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), which is essentially cylinder shaped, where diameter can easily be determined. So, the cross-sectional area (CSA) can be calculated by the formula πr 2. The “velocity time integral” (VTI) can be measured with continuous-wave Doppler at LVOT. With known CSA and VTI, SV can then be calculated (Fig. 4) [23]. TEE can provide not only hemodynamic assessment such as ventricular volume, SV, and CO, and estimation of ventricular systolic function (EF), but also anatomical information such as RV strain for suspected pulmonary embolism [85]. Furthermore, volume assessment can be obtained via TEE by measuring left ventricular end diastolic area (LVEDA). Therefore, TEE can be crucial in guiding proper treatment, such as cessation of inotropic treatment, or administration of volume or vasoconstrictors [82].
Advantages and limitations
TEE offers tremendous advantages, as it can detect anatomical abnormalities, volume status, myocardial contractility information, and other functional assessment as well as hemodynamic parameters. TEE provides relatively minimally invasive and real-time measurement of CO. However, TEE is usually limited to anesthetized patients. Moreover, it cannot be used in very small children because of the size of the probe. The accuracy is also highly dependent upon the quality of echocardiographic images and the operator’s skill and experience [9, 22, 23]. Although overall it is very safe, TEE has its intrinsic risks. As the TEE probe is introduced blindly into the esophagus, it can potentially injure the hypopharynx or the esophagus [86]. The risk factors of the complications are often associated with preexisting esophageal pathologies. In a retrospective study of 7200 cardiac surgery patients, there was no TEE-associated mortality, and morbidity incidence was 0.2 %. The most common complication was severe odynophagia (0.1 %). Other complications could include dental injury (0.03 %), endotracheal tube malpositioning (0.03 %), upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.03 %), and esophageal perforation (0.01 %) [83]. Therefore, TEE should not be used in patients with severe esophageal strictures and should be used cautiously in those with esophageal varices or recent esophageal surgery [87]. The general risk factors for TEE complications are gastroesophageal pathology, difficulty with TEE probe insertion, the elderly or children, history of thoracic radiation, cervical arthritis, and prolonged surgical duration/TEE probe insertion time [88].
Validity studies
The TEE and PAC thermodilution techniques were compared during cardiac surgery. The results indicated clinically acceptable agreement between the two techniques [89]. TEE was compared to PAC in mechanically ventilated patients. A significant correlation between the two techniques was identified. However, TEE had a wider range limits of concordance with PAC technique (−1.73 to 1.29 l/min) and higher percentage errors (38.6 %) [90]. Concha et al. compared TEE with FloTrac/Vigileo in laparoscopic colon surgery patients and found a clinically significant discrepancy in CO measurement by TEE and FloTrac/Vigileo (percentage error, 40 %) [91].
Partial CO2 rebreathing technique: the NICO system
The technique and its mechanism
The partial CO2 rebreathing technique was marketed by Novametrix Medical Systems as the NICO system in 1999 [22]. This method applies Fick’s principle (Eq. 6) by using expired carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration as an indicator. Venous CO2 (VCO2) can be calculated from the difference between inspired and expired gases. NICO system uses an extra loop of ventilatory circuit to create a transient partial CO2 rebreathing system, thus increasing the end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2). The mixed venous CO2 (CvCO2) is estimated by this rebreathing process. The CaCO2 can be approximated by the change in EtCO2 and multiplied to the slope of the CO2 dissociation curve (S). Because the intrapulmonary shunt can affect the estimation of CO, arterial blood gas is needed to evaluate for shunt estimation [22, 92].
where VCO2 = the difference between inspired and expired CO2 content, CvCO2 is estimated by using a partial rebreathing technique, and CaCO2 is estimated from the PaCO2 and the end-tidal CO2.
The NICO system is limited to intubated, sedated, and mechanically ventilated patients. Moreover, NICO cannot be used in severe lung injury patients, as they often have increased shunt and this leads to potential errors in estimating CO [92]. Rocco et al. reported NICO worked very well when the pulmonary shunt level is low, but not when the pulmonary shunt was more than 35 % [93].
Advantages and limitations
The advantage of the NICO system is minimal invasiveness and capability of continuous monitoring of CO. However, NICO is restricted to intubated patients without severe gas-exchange abnormality and patients with PaCO2 above 30 mmHg [22]. Moreover, it is contraindicated in patients who cannot tolerate a brief rebreathing period [23].
Validity studies
NICO was compared to the PAC technique in critically ill patients [94] and off-pump cardiac surgery patients [95]. The results showed a high degree of agreement of these two techniques. Some studies have demonstrated poor concordance between PAC and the NICO system in thoracic surgery and post-cardiac surgery [96]. Botero et al. reported a poor correlation between the PAC technique and the NICO system, as CO measured by NICO tends to be underestimated after separating from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). However, better correlation was seen before initiation of CPB [97]. Erroneous measurement of CO by the NICO system was observed in acute alterations of circulation [98], or in patients with decreased minute ventilation or increased intrapulmonary shunt [71, 99]. NICO was also compared to esophageal Doppler in major abdominal surgery and a poor concordance was observed between them [100]. Similarly, Mielck et al. found weak correlation between NICO and PiCCO systems [101]. Thus, the NICO system may serve as an alternative CO measurement to the PAC thermodilution technique in certain patient groups such as heart surgery patients [92].
Noninvasive CO measurement techniques
In the past decade, a number of truly noninvasive CO monitoring devices have been developed. However, most of them still have limitations and will need further refining for better accuracy and precision.
Thoracic electrical bioimpedance (TEB)
The technique and its mechanism
TEB involves delivery of a low-amplitude high-frequency electrical current across the thorax. The sensing electrodes measuring impedance are placed on the upper and lower thorax. Hemodynamic parameters are measured by TEB devices based on changes in the thoracic electrical conductivity to changes of thoracic aortic blood flow during the cardiac cycle. By measuring the impedance change generated by the pulsatile flow and the time intervals between the changes, SV can be calculated [22, 102].
Advantages and limitations
TEB is a completely noninvasive CO monitoring method. However, TEB is limited by arrhythmia, fluid in the thoracic component, and noise from mechanical ventilation or surgical electrocautery. In addition, the patients need to be intubated, and signal stability often fades after 24 h of the application [22, 84]. Thus TEB is less likely to be used in routine CO monitoring alone. Subsequently, bioreactance was developed to overcome the limitations of TEB.
Validity studies
In post-cardiac surgery patients, CO measurement by the TEB and PAC techniques was compared. TEB had an acceptable accuracy but it might be more useful as a hemodynamic trending analysis, not as a diagnostic interpretation tool [103].
Electrical bioreactance cardiography
The technique and its mechanism
Electric bioreactance (EB) was developed to overcome the limitations of TEB. EB analysis is based on changes in frequency of electrical resistivity across the thorax. The EB signal is less susceptible to interference from chest wall movement, lung edema, and pleural effusion. EB technology is commercially available as the NICOM system in the U.S. [22, 102]. To evaluate CO, four dual electrodes are placed on the chest wall. Each sticker contains an electrode to inject an alternating current (i) with the frequency 75 kHz into the body, and the other electrode is the voltage input amplifier (v) to detect and summarize the return signal (Fig. 5). Then NICOM measures the time delay between these two signals (i and v), which is called a phase shift. In humans, the majority of phase shifts are pulsatile flow from the aorta [104]. The NICOM monitor has a highly sensitive “phase detector” that detects phase shifts and summarizes them into the NICOM signals [104]. The NICOM signals are mainly correlated with aortic blood volume. Flow is the change in volume over time; thus, NICOM flow signals (dNICOM) can be obtained by deriving the NICOM signals in time. The maximum flow (dX/dt max) is measured by the maximum point of the dNICOM signals. The ventricular ejection time is measured from the first and second zero crossing. The SV is calculated based on Eq. 7:
Stroke volume is calculated based on thoracic phase-shift signals.
Advantages and limitations
Bioreactance is a totally noninvasive, continuous monitoring with more variety in clinical applications (e.g., from small children to adults) and is very safe for clinical use. However, signal interference was reported by electrocautery, causing transiently impaired signals [105]. Moreover, during episodes of low flow, NICOM signals may lose their accuracy [106].
Validity studies
In post-cardiac surgery patients, NICOM was compared to PAC technique with good correlation observed [104, 106]. In a multicenter study of intensive care patients, the NICOM, PAC, Fick’s principle, and bioreactance technique were simultaneously compared [107]. In the subset analysis, NICOM had a better correlation to PAC than did other techniques [107]. In major abdominal surgery patients and post-cardiac surgery patients, NICOM was compared to the FloTrac system, with good agreement between these two techniques observed [105, 108]. Squara et al. studied the performance of NICOM by using PiCCO device as the reference. NICOM was also showed a good agreement with the PiCCO system [109]. However, an inconsistent result was seen in critically ill patients, with a percentage error of 82 % [110].
The ccNexfin system
The technique and its mechanism
The ccNexfin system was first introduced in 2007 by Edwards Lifesciences. Recently, a newer version called the ClearSight system has been available. This system is a completely noninvasive continuous CO monitoring system. It measures CO by combining continuous blood pressure monitoring and a novel pulse contour method (Nexfin CO-Trek) [111]. The ccNexfin system includes the following components [112]:
-
1.
Continuous finger BP measurement: the finger cuffs wrap around the middle phalanx of the fingers to measure BP. Each finger cuff includes a LED emitter-detector that measures the diameter of the finger arteries (Fig. 6); it inflates and deflates to keep the diameter of finger arteries constant throughout the cardiac cycle (volume clamp method). The latest version improves its accuracy by performing real-time finger pressure measurement 1000 times per second [113].
-
2.
Brachial pressure reconstruction: the brachial pressure waveform is modified from the finger pressure waveform by a transfer function based on the vast clinical database and correcting for the brachial–finger pressure gradient waveform.
-
3.
Pulse contour method: the pulse contour method is used to estimate CO, which is based on the interaction between the cardiac systole, arterial input impedance (Z in), and the systolic and diastolic arterial pressures, as shown by this formula: ΔP/Q = Z in. Z in is calculated from the characteristic impedance, the total arterial compliance, and the total peripheral resistance, whereas ΔP is calculated from the systolic pressure–time integral of the brachial arterial pressure waveform.
The ccNexfin system provides various hemodynamic parameters including continuous BP, SV, CO, SVV, and SVR.
Advantages and limitations
The ccNexfin system provides continuous, noninvasive CO monitoring, and it is very easy to use. It also provides SVV and PPV, which are used in goal-directed therapy. However, the volume clamp method requires the finger cuff to be inflated continuously. Therefore, the use of ccNexfin is restricted to a maximum of 8 h per finger. Also, the use of ccNexfin may not be suitable in patients with severe peripheral vasoconstriction, very edematous fingers, regurgitant aortic valve, and those with an aneurysm in the proximal aorta [112].
Validity studies
The ccNexfin system had a good concordance with the PAC technique in a small group of heart failure patients [114] and patients undergoing CABG [115]. Ameloot et al. compared ccNexfin with PiCCO system, with results showing moderate to good correlation [116]. Similar results were found when comparing the ccNexfin system with transthoracic echocardiography [117]. However, there are reports that in critically ill patients the ccNexfin system had a poor correlation with PAC technique, with a percentage error as high as 50 % [118]. Unfavorable results were also found when ccNexfin was compared to transesophageal Doppler [119]. Thus, the use of the ccNexfin system should take into consideration the clinical situations and its limitations.
Future trends in CO measurement and hemodynamic monitoring
The PAC thermodilution technique is invasive in nature and has well-documented complications [12, 13, 120]. The utilization of PAC has experienced a steady decline whereas less invasive and noninvasive CO measurement techniques have been increasingly used in clinical practice. The currently available minimally invasive and noninvasive techniques are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Looking into the future, hemodynamic monitoring and CO measurement will have the following trends: the decline in use of PAC will likely continue; the current minimally invasive or noninvasive techniques will be improved in accuracy and precision, being more suitable for clinical use, thus their use will steadily increase; PAC and minimally/noninvasive techniques will be used in better defined and more-specific patient populations; and circulatory functional monitoring will very likely go beyond the assessment of global hemodynamic parameters and step into microcirculation monitoring [121]. The development focus in CO monitoring devices seems to be shifting gears to emphasize the alterations of microcirculatory flow, aiming more at the markers that indicate the effectiveness of circulatory and microcirculatory resuscitations (e.g., lactic acid, vascular endothelial growth factor) [122–124]. Better understanding of the physiology and pathophysiology of microcirculation, especially at the molecular level, needs to be emphasized to design monitors that will detect the alterations and reflect more genuinely the physiological changes in patients.
References
Swan HJ, Ganz W, Forrester J, Marcus H, Diamond G, Chonette D. Catheterization of the heart in man with use of a flow-directed balloon-tipped catheter. N Engl J Med. 1970;283:447–51.
Gidwani UK, Mohanty B, Chatterjee K. The pulmonary artery catheter: a critical reappraisal. Cardiol Clin. 2013;31(4):545–65.
Gore JM, Goldberg RJ, Spodick DH, Alpert JS, Dalen JE. A community-wide assessment of the use of pulmonary artery catheters in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Chest. 1987;92(4):721–7.
Connors AF Jr, Speroff T, Dawson NV, Thomas C, Harrell FE Jr, Wagner D, Desbiens N, Goldman L, Wu AW, Califf RM, Fulkerson WJ Jr, Vidaillet H, Broste S, Bellamy P, Lynn J, Knaus WA. The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT investigator. JAMA. 1996;276(11):889–97.
Binanay C, Califf RM, Hasselblad V, O’Connor CM, Shah MR, Sopko G, Stevenson LW, Francis GS, Leier CV, Miller LW, ESCAPE Investigators and ESCAPE Study Coordinators. Evaluation study of congestive heart failure and pulmonary artery catheterization effectiveness: the ESCAPE trial. JAMA. 2005;294(13):1625–33.
Barnett CF, Vaduganathan M, Lan G, Butler J, Gheorghiade M. Critical reappraisal of pulmonary artery catheterization and invasive hemodynamic assessment in acute heart failure. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2013;11(4):417–24.
Schwann NM, Hillel Z, Hoeft A, Barash P, Möhnle P, Miao Y, Mangano DT. Lack of effectiveness of the pulmonary artery catheter in cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2011;113(5):994–1002.
Gershengorn HB, Wunsch H. Understanding changes in established practice: pulmonary artery catheter use in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(12):2667–76.
Jhanji S, Dawson J, Pearse RM. Cardiac output monitoring: basic science and clinical application. Anaesthesia. 2008;63(2):172–81.
Stewart GN. Researches on the circulation time in organ and on the influences which affect it. J Physiol. 1893;15:1–89.
Chatterjee K. The Swan–Ganz catheters: past, present, and future. Aa viewpoint. Circulation. 2009;119:147–52.
Smart FW, Husserl FE. Complications of flow-directed balloon-tipped catheters. Chest. 1990;97(1):227–8.
Evans DC, Doraiswamy VA, Prosciak MP, Silviera M, Seamon MJ, Rodriguez Funes V, Cipolla J, Wang CF, Kavuturu S, Torigian DA, Cook CH, Lindsey DE, Steinberg SM, Stawicki SP. Complications associated with pulmonary artery catheters: a comprehensive clinical review. Scand J Surg. 2009;98(4):199–208.
Harvey S, Harrison DA, Singer M, Ashcroft J, Jones CM, Elbourne D, Brampton W, Williams D, Young D, Rowan K, PAC-Man study collaboration. Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9484):472–7.
Richard C, Warszawski J, Anguel N, Deye N, Combes A, Barnoud D, Boulain T, Lefort Y, Fartoukh M, Baud F, Boyer A, Brochard L, Teboul JL, French Pulmonary Artery Catheter Study Group. Early use of the pulmonary artery catheter and outcomes in patients with shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290:2713–20.
Zion MM, Balkin J, Rosenmann D, Goldbourt U, Reicher-Reiss H, Kaplinsky E, Behar S. Use of pulmonary artery catheters in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Chest. 1990;98:1331–5.
Hamilton MA, Cecconi M, Rhodes A. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of preemptive hemodynamic intervention to improve postoperative outcomes in moderate and high-risk surgical patients. Anesth Analg. 2011;112(6):1392–402.
Sandham JD, Hull RD, Brant RF, Knox L, Pineo GF, Doig CJ, Laporta DP, Viner S, Passerini L, Devitt H, Kirby A, Jacka M, Canadian Critical Care Clinical Trials Group. A randomized, controlled trial of the use of pulmonary-artery catheters in high-risk surgical patients. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:5–14.
De Waal EE, Wappler F, Buhre WF. Cardiac output monitoring. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2009;22(1):71–7.
Edwardslifescience website. The FloTrac Sensor. 2014. http://www.edwards.com/products/mininvasive/pages/flotracsensor.aspx.
Critchley LA, Critchley JA. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput. 1999;15(2):85–91.
Lee AJ, Cohn JH, Ranasinghe JS. Cardiac output assessed by invasive and minimally invasive techniques. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2011;2011:1–17.
Pugsley J, Lerner AB. Cardiac output monitoring: is there a gold standard and how do the newer technologies compare? Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2010;14(4):274–82.
Montenij LJ, de Waal Eric EC, Buhre WF. Arterial waveform analysis in anesthesia and critical care. Curr Opin Anesthesiol. 2011;24:651–6.
Mayer J, Boldt J, Poland R, Peterson A, Manecke GR Jr. Continuous arterial pressure waveform-based cardiac output using the FloTrac/Vigileo: a review and meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2009;23(3):401–6.
Cecconi M, Fasano N, Langiano N, Divella M, Costa MG, Rhodes A, Della Rocca G. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during elective total hip arthroplasty under regional anaesthesia. Crit Care. 2011;15(3):R132.
De Backer D, Ospina-Tascon G, Salgado D, Favory R, Creteur J, Vincent JL. Monitoring the microcirculation in the critically ill patient: current methods and future approaches. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(11):1813–25.
Vasdev S, Chauhan S, Choudhury M, Hote MP, Malik M, Kiran U. Arterial pressure waveform derived cardiac output FloTrac/Vigileo system (third generation software): comparison of two monitoring sites with the thermodilution cardiac output. J Clin Monit Comput. 2012;26:115–20.
Meng L, Phuong Tran N, Alexander BS, Laning K, Chen G, Kain ZN, Cannesson M. The impact of phenylephrine, ephedrine, and increase preload on third-generation Vigileo-Flotrac and esophageal Doppler cardiac output measurements. Anesth Analg. 2011;113:751–7.
Slagt C, Malagon I, Groeneveld AB. Systematic review of uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to determine cardiac output and stroke volume variation. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112(4):626–37.
Marqué S, Gros A, Chimot L, Gacouin A, Lavoué S, Camus C, Le Tulzo Y. Cardiac output monitoring in septic shock: evaluation of the third-generation Flotrac-Vigileo. J Clin Monit Comput. 2013;27(3):273–9.
Slagt C, de Leeuw MA, Beute J, Rijnsburger E, Hoeksema M, Mulder JW, Malagon I, Groeneveld AB. Cardiac output measured by uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis by recently released software version 3.02 versus thermodilution in septic shock. J Clin Monit Comput. 2013;27:171–7.
Biancofiore G, Critchley LA, Lee A, Bindi L, Bisà M, Esposito M, Meacci L, Mozzo R, DeSimone P, Urbani L, Filipponi F. Evaluation of an uncalibrated arterial pulse contour cardiac output monitoring system in cirrhotic patients undergoing liver surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2009;102(1):47–54.
Metzelder S, Coburn M, Fries M, Reinges M, Reich S, Rossaint R, Marx G, Rex S. Performance of cardiac output measurement derived from arterial pressure waveform analysis in patients requiring highdose vasopressor therapy. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:776–84.
Monnet X, Anguel N, Jozwiak M, Richard C, Teboul JL. Third-generation FloTrac/Vigileo does not reliably track changes in cardiac output induced by norepinephrine in critically ill patients. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108(4):615–22. doi:10.1093/bja/aer491.
Desebbe O, Henaine R, Keller G, Koffel C, Garcia H, Rosamel P, Obadia JF, Bastien O, Lehot JJ, Haftek M, Critchley LA. Ability of the third-generation FloTrac/Vigileo software to track changes in cardiac output in cardiac surgery patients: a polar plot approach. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2013;27(6):1122–7.
Tsai YF, Liu FC, Yu HP. FloTrac/Vigileo system monitoring in acute-care surgery: current and future trends. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013;10(6):717–28.
Kusaka Y, Yoshitani K, Irie T, Inatomi Y, Shinzawa M, Ohnishi Y. Clinical comparison of an echocardiograph derived versus pulse counter derived cardiac output measurement in abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012;26(2):223–6.
Mutoh T, Ishikawa T, Kobavashi S, Suzuki A, Yasui N. Performance of third-generation Flotrac/Vigileo system during hyperdynamic therapy for delayed cerebral ischemia after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3:99.
Reuter DA, Huang C, Edrich T, Shernan SK, Eltzschig HK. Cardiac output monitoring using indicator-dilution techniques: basics, limits, and perspectives. Anesth Analg. 2010;110(3):799–811.
Litton E, Morgan M. The PiCCO monitor: a review. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2012;40(3):393–409.
Schmidt S, Westhoff TH, Hofmann C, Schaefer J-H, Zidek W, Compton F, van der Giet M. Effect of the venous catheter site on transpulmonary thermodilution measurement variables. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:783–6.
Soderstrom CA, Wasserman DH, Dunham CM, Caplan ES, Cowley RA. Superiority of the femoral artery of monitoring: a prospective study. Am J Surg. 1982;144:309–12.
Gallucio ST, Chapman MJ, Finnis ME. Femoral-radial arterial pressure gradients in critically ill patients. Crit Care Resusc. 2009;11:34–8.
Tibby SM, Hatherill M, Marsh MJ, Morrison G, Anderson D, Murdoch IA. Clinical validation of cardiac output measurements using femoral artery thermodilution with direct Fick in ventilated children and infants. Intensive Care Med. 1997;23:987–91.
Lemson J, de Boode WP, Hopman JC, Singh SK, van der Hoeven JG. Validation of transpulmonary thermodilution cardiac output measurement in a pediatric animal model. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2008;9:313–9.
López-Herce J, Bustinza A, Sancho L, Mencía S, Carrillo A, Moral R, Bellón JM. Cardiac output and blood volume parameters using femoral arterial thermodilution. Pediatr Int. 2009;51:59–65.
Michard F, Alaya S, Zarka V, Bahloul M, Richard C, Teboul J. Global end-diastolic volume as an indicator of cardiac preload in patients with septic shock. Chest. 2003;124:1900–8.
Sakka SG, Bredle DL, Reinhart K, Meier-Hellmann A. Comparison between intrathoracic blood volume and cardiac filling pressures in the early phase of hemodynamic instability of patients with sepsis or septic shock. J Crit Care. 1999;14:78–83.
Belda FJ, Aguilar G, Teboul JL, Pestaña D, Redondo FJ, Malbrain M, Luis JC, Ramasco F, Umgelter A, Wendon J, Kirov M, Fernández-Mondéjar E; PICS Investigators Group. Complications related to lessinvasive hemodynamic monitoring. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:482–6.
Buhre W, Weyland A, Kazmaier S, Hanekop GG, Baryalei MM, Sydow M, Sonntag H. Comparison of cardiac output assessed by pulse-contour analysis and thermodilution in patients undergoing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 1999;13(4):437–40.
Goedje O, Hoeke K, Lichtwarck-Aschoff M, Faltchauser A, Lamm P, Reichart B. Continuous cardiac output by femoral arterial thermodilution calibrated pulse contour analysis: comparison with pulmonary arterial thermodilution. Crit Care Med. 1999;27(11):2407–12.
Sujatha P, Metha Y, Dhar A, Sarkar D, Meharwal ZS, Trehan N. Comparison of cardiac output in OPCAB: bolus thermodilution technique versus pulse contour analysis. Ann Card Anaesth. 2006;9:44–8.
Hadian M, Kim HK, Severyn DA, Pinsky MR. Cross-comparison of cardiac output trending accuracy of LiDCO, PiCCO, FloTrac and pulmonary artery catheters. Crit Care. 2010;14(6):R212.
Horster S, Stemmler HJ, Sparrer J, Tischer J, Hausmann A, Geiger S. Mechanical ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure in critically ill patients: comparison of CW-Doppler ultrasound cardiac output monitoring (USCOM) and thermodilution (PiCCO). Acta Cardiol. 2012;67(2):177–85.
Broch O, Renner J, Gruenewald M, Meybohm P, Schöttler J, Caliebe A, Steinfath M, Malbrain M, Bein B. A comparison of the Nexfin® and transcardiopulmonary thermodilution to estimate cardiac output during coronary artery surgery. Anaesthesia. 2012;67(4):377–83.
Lu N, Zheng R, Lin H, Shao J, Yu J. Clinical studies of surviving sepsis bundles according to PiCCO on septic shock patients. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2014;26(1):23–7.
Halvorsen PS, Sokolov A, Cvancarova M, Hol PK, Lundblad R, Tønnessen TI. Continuous cardiac output during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: pulse-contour analyses vs pulmonary artery thermodilution. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99(4):484–92.
Linton R, Band D, O’Brien T, Jonas M, Leach R. Lithium dilution cardiac output measurement: a comparison with thermodilution. Crit Care Med. 1997;25(11):1796–800.
Kurita T, Morita K, Kato S, Kawasaki H, Kikura K, Kazama T, Ikeda K. Lithium dilution cardiac output measurements using a peripheral injection site comparison with central injection technique and thermodilution. J Clin Monit Comput. 1999;15:279–85.
Sundar S, Panzica P. LiDCO systems. Int Anes Clin. 2010;48:87–100.
Ostergaard D, Engbaek J, Viby-Mogensen J. Adverse reactions and interactions of the neuromuscular blocking drugs. Med Toxicol Adverse Drug Exp. 1989;4(5):351–68.
Pearse RM, Ikram K, Barry J. Equipment review: an appraisal of the LiDCO plus method of measuring cardiac output. Crit Care. 2004;8(3):190–5.
Costa MG, Della Rocca D, Chiarandini G, Mattelig S, Pompei L, Barriga MS, Reynolds T, Cecconi M, Pietropaoli P. Continuous and intermittent cardiac output measurement in hyperdynamic conditions: pulmonary artery catheter versus lithium dilution technique. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34:257–63.
McCoy JV, Hollenberg SM, Dellinger RP, Arnold RC, Ruoss L, Lotano V, Peters P, Parrillo JE, Trzeciak S. Continuous cardiac index monitoring: a prospective observational study of agreement between a pulmonary artery catheter and a calibrated minimally invasive technique. Resuscitation. 2009;80(8):893–7.
Dyer RA, Piercy JL, Reed AR, Strathie GW, Lombard CJ, Anthony JA, James MF. Comparison between pulse waveform analysis and thermodilution cardiac output determination in patients with severe preeclampsia. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106(1):77–81.
Yamashita K, Nishivama T, Yokoyama T, Abe H, Manabe M. Effect of vasodilation on cardiac output measured by PulseCO. J Clin Monit Comput. 2007;21(6):335–9.
Belloni L, Pisano A, Natale A, Piccirillo MR, Piazza L, Ismeno G, De Martino G. Assessment of fluidresponsiveness parameters for off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: a comparison among LiDCO, transesophageal echocardiography, and pulmonary artery catheter. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2008;22(2):243–8.
Romagnoli S, Bevilacqua S, Lazzeri C, Ciappi F, Dini D, Pratesi C, Gensini GF, Romano SM. Most care: a minimally invasive system for hemodynamic monitoring powered by the pressure recording analytical method (PRAM). HSR Pro Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth. 2009;1(2):20–7.
Romano SM, Pistolesi M. Assessment of cardiac output from systemic arterial pressure in humans. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:1834–41.
Funk DJ, Motetti EW, Gan TJ. Minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring in the perioperative setting. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:887–97.
Barile L, Landoni G, Pieri M, Ruggeri L, Maj G, Neto CN, Pasin L, Cabrini L, Zangrillo A. Cardiac index assessment by the pressure recording analytic method in critically ill unstable patients after cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2013;27(6):1108–13.
Alhashemi JA, Cecconi M, Hofer CK. Cardiac output monitoring: an integrative perspective. Crit Care. 2011;15(2):214 (1–9).
Marik Paul E. Noninvasive cardiac output monitors: a state-of the-art review. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2013;27(1):121–34.
Giomarelli P, Biagioli B, Scolletta S. Cardiac output monitoring by pressure recording analytical method in cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004;26:515–20.
Zangrillo A, Maj G, Monaco F. Cardiac index validation using the pressure recording analytic method in unstable patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2010;24:265–9.
Donati A, Carsetti A, Tondi S, Scorcella C, Domizi R, Damiani E, Gabbanelli V, Münch C, Adrario E, Pelaia P, Cecconi M. Thermodilution vs pressure recording analytical method in hemodynamic stabilized patients. J Crit Care. 2014;29(2):260–4.
Paarmann H, Groesdonk HV, Sedemund-Adib B, Hanke T, Heinze H, Heringlake M, Schön J. Lack of agreement between pulmonary arterial thermodilution cardiac output and the pressure recording analytical method in postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:475–81.
Maj G, Monaco F, Landoni G, Barile L, Nicolotti D, Pieri M, Melisurgo G. Cardiac index assessment by the pressure recording analytic method in unstable patients with atrial fibrillation. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2011;25:476–80.
Chamos C, Vele L, Hamilton M, Cecconi M. Less invasive methods of advanced hemodynamic monitoring: principles, devices, and their role in the perioperative hemodynamic optimization. Perioper Med (Lond). 2013;2(1):19.
Bendjelid K, Marx G, Kiefer N, Simon TP, Geisen M, Hoeft A, Siegenthaler N, Hofer CK. Performance of a new pulse contour method for continuous cardiac output monitoring: validation in critically ill patients. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(4):573–9.
Sakka SG, Reuter DA. The transpulmonary thermodilution technique. J Clin Monit Comput. 2012;26:347–53.
Flachskampf FA, Badano L, Daniel WG, Feneck RO, Fox KF, Fraser AG, Pasquet A, Pepi M, Perez de Isla L, Zamorano JL, European Association of Echocardiography, Echo Committee of the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiologists. Recommendations for transoesophageal echocardiography: update 2010. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2010;11:557–76.
Porhomayon J, El-Solh A, Papadakos P, Nader ND. Cardiac output monitoring devices: an analytic review. Intern Emerg Med. 2012;7:163–71.
Liu H, Kalarickal PL, Tong Y, Inui D, Yarborough MJ, Mathew KA, Gelineau A, Fox CJ. Perioperative considerations of patients with pulmonary hypertension. In: Elwing JM, Panos RJ, editors. Chapter 9. InTech Publisher (open access); 2013. ISBN 978-953-51-1165-8. doi:10.5772/56056.
Guarracino F, Baldassarri R. Transesophaageal echocardiography in the OR and ICU. Minerva Anestesiol. 2008;75:518–29.
Kallmeyer IJ, Collard CD, Fox JA, Body SC, Shernan SK. The safety of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography: a case series of 7200 cardiac surgical patients. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:1126–30.
Shernan SK. Clinical transesophageal echocardiography: a problem-oriented approach. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003.
Parra V, Fita G, Rovira I, Matute P, Gomar C, Pare C. Transoesophageal echocardiography accurately detects CO variation: a prospective comparison with thermodilution in cardiac surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2008;25:135–43.
Møller-Sørensen H, Graeser K, Hansen KL, Zemtsovski M, Sander EM, Nilsson JC. Measurements of cardiac output obtained with transesophageal echocardiography and pulmonary artery thermodilution are not interchangeable. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014;58(1):80–8.
Concha MR, Mertz VF, Cortínez LI, González KA, Butte JM. Pulse contour analysis and transesophageal echocardiography: a comparison of measurements of cardiac output during laparoscopic colon surgery. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(1):114–8.
Young BP, Low LL. Noninvasive monitoring cardiac output using partial CO2 rebreathing. Crit Care Clin. 2010;26(2):383–92.
Rocco M, Spadetta G, Morelli A, Dell'Utri D, Porzi P, Conti G, Pietropaoli P. A comparative evaluation of thermodilution and partial CO2 rebreathing techniques for cardiac output assessment in critically ill patients during assisted ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(1):82–7.
Odenstedt H, Stenqvist O, Lundin S. Clinical evaluation of a partial CO2 rebreathing technique for cardiac output monitoring in critically ill patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2002;46(2):152–9.
Gueret G, Kiss G, Rossignol B, Bezon E, Wargnier JP, Miossec A, Corre O, Arvieux CC. Cardiac output measurements in off-pump coronary surgery: comparison between NICO and the Swan-Ganz catheter. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2006;23:848–54.
Ng JM, Chow MY, Ip-Yam PC, Goh MH, Agasthian T. Evaluation of partial carbon dioxide rebreathing CO measurement during thoracic surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2007;21:655–8.
Botero M, Kirby D, Lobato EB, Staples ED, Gravenstein N. Measurement of cardiac output before and after cardiopulmonary bypass: comparison among aortic transit-time ultrasound, thermodilution, and noninvasive partial CO2 rebreathing. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2004;18(5):563–72.
Bajorat J, Hofmockel R, Vagts DA, Janda M, Pohl B, Beck C, Noeldge-Schomburg G. Comparison of invasive and less-invasive techniques of cardiac output measurement under different haemodynamic conditions in a pig model. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2006;23(1):23–30.
Berton C, Cholley B. Equipment review: new techniques for cardiac output measurement: oesophageal Doppler, Fick principle using carbon dioxide, and pulse contour analysis. Crit Care. 2002;6:216–21.
Green DW. Comparison of cardiac outputs during major surgery using the DeltexCardioQoesophageal Doppler monitor and the Novametrix-Respironics NICO: a prospective observational study. Int J Surg. 2007;5(3):176–82.
Mielck F, Buhre W, Hanekop G, Tirilomis T, Hilgers R, Sonntag H. Comparison of continuous cardiac output measurements in patients after cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2003;17(2):211–6.
Mohammed I, Phillips C. Techniques for determining cardiac output in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Clin. 2010;26(2):355–64.
Squara P, Denjean D, Estagnasie P, Brusset A, Dib JC, Dubois C. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(7):1191–4.
Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest. 2008;134:172–8.
Kim JY, Kim BR, Lee KH, Kim KW, Kim JH, Lee SI, Kim KT, Choe WJ, Park JS, Kim JW. Comparison of cardiac output derived from FloTrac™/Vigileo™ and impedance cardiography during major abdominal surgery. J Int Med Res. 2013;41(4):1342–9.
Cheung H, Dong Q, Dong R, Yu B. Correlation of cardiac output measured by non-invasive continuous cardiac output monitoring (NICOM) and thermodilution in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. J Anesth. 2015;29(3):416–20.
Raval NY, Squara P, Cleman M, Yalamanchili K, Winklmaier M, Burkhoff D. Multicenter evaluation of noninvasive cardiac output measurement by bioreactance technique. J Clin Monit Comput. 2008;22(2):113–9.
Marqué S, Cariou A, Chiche JD, Squara P. Comparison between Flotrac-Vigileo and bioreactance, a totally noninvasive method for cardiac output monitoring. Crit Care. 2009;13(3):1–6.
Squara P, Rotcajg D, Denjean D, Estagnasie P, Brusset A. Comparison of monitoring performance of bioreactance vs. pulse contour during lung recruitment maneuvers. Crit Care. 2009;13(4):125–31.
Kupersztych-Hagege E, Teboul JL, Artigas A, Talbot A, Sabatier C, Richard C, Monnet X. Bioreactance is not reliable for estimating cardiac output and the effects of passive leg raising in critically ill patients. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(6):961–6.
Akl TJ, Wilson MA, Ericson MN, Coté GL. Quantifying tissue mechanical properties using photoplethysmography. Biomed Opt Express. 2014;5(7):2362–75. doi:10.1364/BOE.5.002362 (eCollection 2014).
Perel A, Settels JJ. Totally non-invasive continuous cardiac output measurement with the Nexfin CO-Trek. Ann Update Intensive Care Emerg Med. 2011;1:434–42.
Edwards lifescienes: the ClearSight system. 2014. http://www.edwards.com/products/mininvasive/Pages/clearsightsystem.aspx.
Sokolski M, Rydlewska A, Krakowiak B, Biegus J, Zymlinski R, Banasiak W, Jankowska EA, Ponikowski P. Comparison of invasive and non-invasive measurements of haemodynamic parameters in patients with advanced heart failure. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2011;12(11):773–8.
Bogert LW, Wesseling KH, Schraa O, Van Lieshout EJ, de Mol BA, van Goudoever J, Westerhof BE, van Lieshout JJ. Pulse contour cardiac output derived from non-invasive arterial pressure in cardiovascular disease. Anaesthesia. 2010;65(11):1119–25.
Ameloot K, Van De Vijver K, Broch O, Van Regenmortel N, De Laet I, Schoonheydt K, Dits H, Bein B, Malbrain ML. Nexfin noninvasive continuous hemodynamic monitoring: validation against continuous pulse contour and intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution derived cardiac output in critically ill patients. Sci World J. 2013;2013:519080.
Van der Spoel AG, Voogel AJ, Folkers A, Boer C, Bouwman RA. Comparison of noninvasive continuous arterial waveform analysis (Nexfin) with transthoracic Doppler echocardiography for monitoring of cardiac output. J Clin Anesth. 2012;24(4):304–9.
Stover JF, Stocker R, Lenherr R, Neff TA, Cottini SR, Zoller B, Béchir M. Noninvasive cardiac output and blood pressure monitoring cannot replace an invasive monitoring system in clinically ill patients. BMC Anesthesiol. 2009;12(9):6.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring in obstetrics and gynecology: ACOG technical bulletin no. 175. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1993;42:199–205.
American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Pulmonary Artery Catheterization. Practice guidelines for pulmonary artery catheterization: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Pulmonary Artery Catheterization. Anesthesiology. 2003;99(4):988–1014.
De Backer D, Marx G, Tan A. Arterial pressure-based cardiac output monitoring: a multicenter validation of the third-generation software in septic patients. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37:233–40.
Xing K, Murthy S, Liles WC, Singh JM. Clinical utility of biomarkers of endothelial activation in sepsis: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2012;16(1):R7.
Sakr Y, Dubois MJ, De Backer D, Creteur J, Vincent JL. Persistent microcirculatory alterations are associated with organ failure and death in patients with septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:1825–31.
Vincent JL, Rhodes A, Perel A, Martin GS, Della Rocca G, Vallet B, Pinsky MR, Hofer CK, Teboul JL, de Boode WP, Scolletta S, Vieillard-Baron A, De Backer D, Walley KR, Maggiorini M, Singer M. Clinical review: update on hemodynamic monitoring—a consensus of 16. Crit Care. 2011;15(4):229.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Sangkum, L., Liu, G.L., Yu, L. et al. Minimally invasive or noninvasive cardiac output measurement: an update. J Anesth 30, 461–480 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-016-2154-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-016-2154-9