Dataset Information

Temporal concordance between pulse contour analysis, bioreactance and carotid doppler during rapid preload changes.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

We describe the temporal concordance of 3 hemodynamic monitors.

Materials and methods

Healthy volunteers performed preload changes while simultaneously wearing a non-invasive, pulse-contour stroke volume (SV) monitor, a bioreactance SV monitor and a wireless, wearable Doppler ultrasound patch over the common carotid artery. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting preload change over 3 temporal windows (early, middle and late) was assessed.

Results

40 preload changes were recorded in total (20 increase, 20 decrease). Immediately, the wearable Doppler had high sensitivity (100%) and specificity (100%) for detecting preload change with an area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) of 0.98 for both velocity time integral (VTI, 10.5% threshold) and corrected flow time (FTc, 2.5% threshold). The sensitivity, specificity and AUROC for non-invasive pulse contour were equally good (9% SV threshold). For bioreactance, a 13% SV threshold immediately detected preload change with a sensitivity, specificity and AUROC of 60%, 95% and 0.75, respectively. After two SV outputs following preload change, the sensitivity, specificity and AUROC of bioreactance improved to 70%, 90% and 0.85, respectively.

Conclusions

Carotid Doppler ultrasound and non-invasive pulse contour detected rapid hemodynamic change with equal accuracy; bioreactance improved over time. Algorithm-lag should be considered when interpreting clinical studies.

SUBMITTER: Kenny JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8942202 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Temporal concordance between pulse contour analysis, bioreactance and carotid doppler during rapid preload changes.

Kenny Jon-Émile S JS Barjaktarevic Igor I Eibl Andrew M AM Parrotta Matthew M Long Bradley F BF Elfarnawany Mai M Eibl Joseph K JK

PloS one 20220323 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>We describe the temporal concordance of 3 hemodynamic monitors.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Healthy volunteers performed preload changes while simultaneously wearing a non-invasive, pulse-contour stroke volume (SV) monitor, a bioreactance SV monitor and a wireless, wearable Doppler ultrasound patch over the common carotid artery. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting preload change over 3 temporal windows (early, middle and late) was assessed.<h4>Results</h4>40 preload c ...[more]

PMID: 35320307

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients scheduled for thoracic cancer surgery are eligible for goal-directed fluid therapy, but cardiac output monitoring remains challenging in that specific setting.ObjectiveWe aimed to compare cardiac output as measured with chest bioreactance with that measured by calibrated pulse contour analysis; the hypothesis being that both methods would be interchangeable.DesignA prospective monocentre observational study.SettingA tertiary university hospital.PatientsFifty adult patients undergoing thoracic cancer surgery over a one year period.Main outcome measuresSimultaneous measurements of cardiac index (CI) with bioreactance (CI-NICOM) and arterial pulse contour analysis calibrated by transthoracic echocardiography (CI-PCA) were performed at eight pre-specified intra-operative time points and following fluid challenge and/or vasoactive agents. Relationships between absolute values and changes in CI were assessed by linear regression. Interchangeability was tested with Bland-Altman analysis and percentage error calculation. A four quadrant plot was used to evaluate trending ability.ResultsThere was a significant difference between CI-PCA and CI-NICOM: 2.4 ± 0.8 (range: 0.9 to 5.8) l min-1 m-2 vs. 2.9 ± 0.9 (range: 0.9 to 7.2) l min-1 m-2, respectively (P < 0.001). A positive relationship was found between both techniques: y = 0.29x + 2.19; r 2 = 0.08 (P < 0.001). Taking CI-PCA as the reference method, there was a systematic overestimation of CI-NICOM by 21% (0.5 l min-1 m-2) and limits of agreement were large: -2.49 to 1.47 l min-1 m-2. The percentage error was 77% and concordance rates were 75 and 70% with and without an exclusion zone of 0.5 l min-1 m-2.ConclusionChest bioreactance is feasible and well tolerated in patients undergoing thoracic surgery for cancer. When compared with calibrated PCA over a wide range of CI values, the technique is moderately correlated, not interchangeable, and provides moderate trending ability.Trial registrationNCT04251637.

Project description:BackgroundThe end-expiratory occlusion (EEXPO) test detects preload responsiveness, but it is 15 s long and induces small changes in cardiac index (CI). It is doubtful whether the Starling bioreactance device, which averages CI over 24 s and refreshes the displayed value every 4 s (Starling-24.4), can detect the EEXPO-induced changes in CI (ΔCI). Our primary goal was to test whether this Starling device version detects preload responsiveness through EEXPO. We also tested whether shortening the averaging and refresh times to 8 s and one second, respectively, (Starling-8.1) improves the accuracy of the device in detecting preload responsiveness using EEXPO.MethodsIn 42 mechanically ventilated patients, during a 15-s EEXPO, we measured ∆CI through calibrated pulse contour analysis (CIpulse, PiCCO2 device) and using the Starling device. For the latter, we considered both CIStarling-24.4 from the commercial version and CIStarling-8.1 derived from the raw data. For relative ∆CIStarling-24.4 and ∆CIStarling-8.1 during EEXPO, we calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) to detect preload responsiveness, defined as an increase in CIpulse ≥ 10% during passive leg raising (PLR). For both methods, the correlation coefficient vs. ∆CIpulse was calculated.ResultsTwenty-six patients were preload responders and sixteen non preload-responders. The AUROC for ∆CIStarling-24.4 was significantly lower compared to ∆CIStarling-8.1 (0.680 ± 0.086 vs. 0.899 ± 0.049, respectively; p = 0.027). A significant correlation was observed between ∆CIStarling-8.1 and ∆CIpulse (r = 0.42; p = 0.009), but not between ∆CIStarling-24.4 and ∆CIpulse. During PLR, both ∆CIStarling-24.4 and ∆CIStarling-8.1 reliably detected preload responsiveness.ConclusionsShortening the averaging and refresh times of the bioreactance signal to 8 s and one second, respectively, increases the reliability of the Starling device in detection of EEXPO-induced ∆CI.Trial registrationNo.Idrcb2018-A02825-50. Registered 13 December 2018.

Project description:BackgroundFemoral dP/dtmax (maximum rate of the arterial pressure increase during systole) measured by pulse contour analysis has been proposed as a surrogate of left ventricular (LV) dP/dtmax and as an estimator of LV systolic function. However, femoral dP/dtmax may be influenced by LV loading conditions. In this study, we evaluated the impact of variations of LV systolic function, preload and afterload on femoral dP/dtmax in critically ill patients with cardiovascular failure to ascertain its reliability as a marker of LV systolic function.ResultsWe performed a prospective observational study to evaluate changes in femoral dP/dtmax, thermodilution-derived variables (PiCCO2-Pulsion Medical Systems, Feldkirchen, Germany) and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) measured by transthoracic echocardiography during variations in dobutamine and norepinephrine doses and during volume expansion (VE) and passive leg raising (PLR). Correlations with arterial pulse and systolic pressure, effective arterial elastance, total arterial compliance and LVEF were also evaluated. In absolute values, femoral dP/dtmax deviated from baseline by 21% (201 ± 297 mmHg/s; p = 0.013) following variations in dobutamine dose (n = 17) and by 15% (177 ± 135 mmHg/s; p < 0.001) following norepinephrine dose changes (n = 29). Femoral dP/dtmax remained unchanged after VE and PLR (n = 24). Changes in femoral dP/dtmax were strongly correlated with changes in pulse pressure and systolic arterial pressure during dobutamine dose changes (R = 0.942 and 0.897, respectively), norepinephrine changes (R = 0.977 and 0.941, respectively) and VE or PLR (R = 0.924 and 0.897, respectively) (p < 0.05 in all cases). Changes in femoral dP/dtmax were correlated with changes in LVEF (R = 0.527) during dobutamine dose variations but also with effective arterial elastance and total arterial compliance in the norepinephrine group (R = 0.638 and R = - 0.689) (p < 0.05 in all cases).ConclusionsPulse contour analysis-derived femoral dP/dtmax was not only influenced by LV systolic function but also and prominently by LV afterload and arterial waveform characteristics in patients with acute cardiovascular failure. These results suggest that femoral dP/dtmax calculated by pulse contour analysis is an unreliable estimate of LV systolic function during changes in LV afterload and arterial load by norepinephrine and directly linked to arterial waveform determinants.

Dataset Information

Temporal concordance between pulse contour analysis, bioreactance and carotid doppler during rapid preload changes.

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Temporal concordance between pulse contour analysis, bioreactance and carotid doppler during rapid preload changes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets