Link to the University of Pittsburgh Homepage
Link to the University Library System Homepage Link to the Contact Us Form

Cross-comparison of cardiac output trending accuracy of LiDCO, PiCCO, FloTrac and pulmonary artery catheters

Hadian, M and Kim, HK and Severyn, DA and Pinsky, MR (2010) Cross-comparison of cardiac output trending accuracy of LiDCO, PiCCO, FloTrac and pulmonary artery catheters. Critical Care, 14 (6). ISSN 1364-8535

[img] Plain Text (licence)
Available under License : See the attached license file.

Download (1kB)


Introduction: Although less invasive than pulmonary artery catheters (PACs), arterial pulse pressure analysis techniques for estimating cardiac output (CO) have not been simultaneously compared to PAC bolus thermodilution CO (COtd) or continuous CO (CCO) devices.Methods: We compared the accuracy, bias and trending ability of LiDCO™, PiCCO™ and FloTrac™ with PACs (COtd, CCO) to simultaneously track CO in a prospective observational study in 17 postoperative cardiac surgery patients for the first 4 hours following intensive care unit admission. Fifty-five paired simultaneous quadruple CO measurements were made before and after therapeutic interventions (volume, vasopressor/dilator, and inotrope).Results: Mean CO values for PAC, LiDCO, PiCCO and FloTrac were similar (5.6 ± 1.5, 5.4 ± 1.6, 5.4 ± 1.5 and 6.1 ± 1.9 L/min, respectively). The mean CO bias by each paired method was -0.18 (PAC-LiDCO), 0.24 (PAC-PiCCO), -0.43 (PAC-FloTrac), 0.06 (LiDCO-PiCCO), -0.63 (LiDCO-FloTrac) and -0.67 L/min (PiCCO-FloTrac), with limits of agreement (1.96 standard deviation, 95% confidence interval) of ± 1.56, ± 2.22, ± 3.37, ± 2.03, ± 2.97 and ± 3.44 L/min, respectively. The instantaneous directional changes between any paired CO measurements displayed 74% (PAC-LiDCO), 72% (PAC-PiCCO), 59% (PAC-FloTrac), 70% (LiDCO-PiCCO), 71% (LiDCO-FloTrac) and 63% (PiCCO-FloTrac) concordance, but poor correlation (r2 = 0.36, 0.11, 0.08, 0.20, 0.23 and 0.11, respectively). For mean CO < 5 L/min measured by each paired devices, the bias decreased slightly.Conclusions: Although PAC (COTD/CCO), FloTrac, LiDCO and PiCCO display similar mean CO values, they often trend differently in response to therapy and show different interdevice agreement. In the clinically relevant low CO range (< 5 L/min), agreement improved slightly. Thus, utility and validation studies using only one CO device may potentially not be extrapolated to equivalency of using another similar device. © 2010 Hadian et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.


Social Networking:
Share |


Item Type: Article
Status: Published
CreatorsEmailPitt UsernameORCID
Hadian, M
Kim, HKhyk11@pitt.eduHYK11
Severyn, DA
Pinsky, MRpinsky@pitt.eduPINSKY0000-0001-6166-700X
Date: 23 November 2010
Date Type: Publication
Journal or Publication Title: Critical Care
Volume: 14
Number: 6
DOI or Unique Handle: 10.1186/cc9335
Schools and Programs: School of Medicine > Critical Care Medicine
Refereed: Yes
ISSN: 1364-8535
PubMed Central ID: PMC3220011
PubMed ID: 21092290
Date Deposited: 07 Mar 2012 20:47
Last Modified: 22 Jun 2021 14:55


Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item