Cardiac index measurements during rapid preload changes: a comparison of pulmonary artery thermodilution with arterial pulse contour analysis

Advances in Critical Care for the Nephrologist

“…Mathematical analyses of the change in temperature over time estimate the CO. The thermodilution curve allows for the calculation of other variables, including global end diastolic volume and extravascular lung water (26,39,42). Studies that have compared transpulmonary technique with pulmonary artery thermodilution and Fick have been encouraging (39).…”

“…This device must first be calibrated with the pulmonary thermodilution technique. It has been shown to correlate well with thermodilution in various patient populations, using different arteries and after changes in preload (42,44,45). The PulsCO (LiDCO Limited, Cambridge, UK) is the second of the three pulse contour devices.…”

Estimating cardiac output. Utility in the clinical practice. Available invasive and non-invasive monitoring

“…The results, when compared with PAC, are favorable even in situations of rapid hemodynamic changes. 1 The correlation is also maintained when the cardiac output is low 2 and small deviations in the calculations imply greater errors in the result. In pediatric patients, with injections of 1.5 ml + 0.15 ml/kg of saline solution, the comparison with LiDCO ® plus yields an r 2 of 0.96.…”

Minimally- and non-invasive assessment of maternal cardiac output: go with the flow!

“…[74][75][76] Inaccuracies when compared to PAC-derived thermodilution resulted in the original algorithms when there were variations in systemic vascular resistance but these have been modified subsequently so that some of these devices now appear more robust in rapidly changing haemodynamic situations. There have been recent suggestions of a requirement for studies to specifically observe the validity of changes in pulse contour CO. [77][78][79][80] A recent study performed a cross-comparison of the trending accuracy of the PAC, FloTrac Ò , LiDCO Ò and PiCCO Ò and showed that although the different devices displayed similar mean CO values, they often trended differently in response to therapy and showed different inter-device agreement. 81 In the clinically relevant low CO range (<5 L/min), agreement improved slightly.…”