Search

We compared the accuracy and precision of the non-invasive Nexfin(®) device for determining systolic, diastolic, mean arterial pressure and pulse pressure variation, with arterial blood pressure values measured from a radial artery catheter in 19 patients following upper abdominal surgery. Measurements were taken at baseline and following fluid loading. Pooled data results of the arterial blood pressures showed no difference between the two measurement modalities. Bland-Altman analysis of pulse pressure variation showed significant differences between values obtained from the radial artery catheter and Nexfin finger cuff technology (mean (SD) 1.49 (2.09)%, p < 0.001, coefficient of variation 24%, limits of agreement -2.71% to 5.69%). The effect of volume expansion on pulse pressure variation was identical between methods (concordance correlation coefficient 0.848). We consider the Nexfin monitor system to be acceptable for use in patients after major upper abdominal surgery without major cardiovascular compromise or haemodynamic support., (© 2016 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.)

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of stroke volume variation (SVV) as measured by the LiDCOplus system (SVVli) and by the FloTrac-Vigileo system (SVVed). We measured SVVli and SVVed in 15 postoperative cardiac surgical patients following five study interventions; a 50% increase in tidal volume, an increase of PEEP by 10 cm H2O, passive leg raising, a head-up tilt procedure and fluid loading. Between each intervention, baseline measurements were performed. 136 data pairs were obtained. SVVli ranged from 1.4% to 26.8% (mean (SD) 8.7 (4.6)%); SVVed from 2.0% to 26.0% (10.2 (4.7)%). The bias was found to be significantly different from zero at 1.5 (2.5)%, p < 0.001, (95% confidence interval 1.1-1.9). The upper and lower limits of agreement were found to be 6.4 and -3.5% respectively. The coefficient of variation for the differences between SVVli and SVVed was 26%. This results in a relative large range for the percentage limits of agreement of 52%. Analysis in repeated measures showed coefficients of variation of 21% for SVVli and 22% for SVVed. The LiDCOplus and FloTrac-Vigileo system are not interchangeable. Furthermore, the determination of SVVli and SVVed are too ambiguous, as can be concluded from the high values of the coefficient of variation for repeated measures. These findings underline Pinsky's warning of caution in the clinical use of SVV by pulse contour techniques.

We evaluated cardiac output (CO) using three new methods - the auto-calibrated FloTrac-Vigileo (CO(ed)), the non-calibrated Modelflow (CO(mf) ) pulse contour method and the ultra-sound HemoSonic system (CO(hs)) - with thermodilution (CO(td)) as the reference. In 13 postoperative cardiac surgical patients, 104 paired CO values were assessed before, during and after four interventions: (i) an increase of tidal volume by 50%; (ii) a 10 cm H(2)O increase in positive end-expiratory pressure; (iii) passive leg raising and (iv) head up position. With the pooled data the difference (bias (2SD)) between CO(ed) and CO(td), CO(mf) and CO(td) and CO(hs) and CO(td) was 0.33 (0.90), 0.30 (0.69) and -0.41 (1.11) l.min(-1), respectively. Thus, Modelflow had the lowest mean squared error, suggesting that it had the best performance. CO(ed) significantly overestimates changes in cardiac output while CO(mf) and CO(hs) values are not significantly different from those of CO(td). Directional changes in cardiac output by thermodilution were detected with a high score by all three methods.

We compared the accuracy and precision of the non-invasive Nexfin(®) device for determining systolic, diastolic, mean arterial pressure and pulse pressure variation, with arterial blood pressure values measured from a radial artery catheter in 19 patients following upper abdominal surgery. Measurements were taken at baseline and following fluid loading. Pooled data results of the arterial blood pressures showed no difference between the two measurement modalities. Bland-Altman analysis of pulse pressure variation showed significant differences between values obtained from the radial artery catheter and Nexfin finger cuff technology (mean (SD) 1.49 (2.09)%, p < 0.001, coefficient of variation 24%, limits of agreement -2.71% to 5.69%). The effect of volume expansion on pulse pressure variation was identical between methods (concordance correlation coefficient 0.848). We consider the Nexfin monitor system to be acceptable for use in patients after major upper abdominal surgery without major cardiovascular compromise or haemodynamic support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]