BackgroundThermodilution technique using a pulmonary artery catheter is widely used for the assessment of cardiac output (CO) in patients undergoing liver transplantation. However, the unclearness of the risk-benefit ratio of this method has led to an interest in less invasive modalities. Thus, we evaluated whether noninvasive bioreactance CO monitoring is interchangeable with thermodilution technique.MethodsNineteen recipients undergoing adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation were enrolled in this prospective observational study. COs were recorded automatically by the two devices and compared simultaneously at 3-minute intervals. The Bland–Altman plot was used to evaluate the agreement between bioreactance and thermodilution. Clinically acceptable agreement was defined as a percentage error of limits of agreement <30%. The four quadrant plot was used to evaluate concordance between bioreactance and thermodilution. Clinically acceptable concordance was defined as a concordance rate >92%.ResultsA total of 2640 datasets were collected. The mean CO difference between the two techniques was 0.9 l/min, and the 95% limits of agreement were -3.5 l/min and 5.4 l/min with a percentage error of 53.9%. The percentage errors in the dissection, anhepatic, and reperfusion phase were 50.6%, 56.1%, and 53.5%, respectively. The concordance rate between the two techniques was 54.8%.ConclusionBioreactance and thermodilution failed to show acceptable interchangeability in terms of both estimating CO and tracking CO changes in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Thus, the use of bioreactance as an alternative CO monitoring to thermodilution, in spite of its noninvasiveness, would be hard to recommend in these surgical patients.

No abstract