• A Caillard, E Gayat, A Tantot, G Dubreuil, E M'Bakulu, C Madadaki, F Bart, D Bresson, S Froelich, A Mebazaa, and F Vallée.
• Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hôpitaux Universitaires St-Louis-Lariboisière-Fernand Widal, Paris, France University Paris Diderot, Paris, France INSERM UMR-942, Paris, France.
• Br J Anaesth. 2015 Jun 1;114(6):893-900.

BackgroundMaintaining adequate organ perfusion during high-risk surgery requires continuous monitoring of cardiac output to optimise haemodynamics. Oesophageal Doppler Cardiac Output monitoring (DCO) is commonly used in this context, but has some limitations. Recently, the cardiac output estimated by pulse pressure analysis- (PPCO) was developed. This study evaluated the agreement of cardiac output variations estimated with 9 non-commercial algorithms of PPCO compared with those obtained with DCO.MethodsHigh-risk patients undergoing neurosurgery were monitored with invasive blood pressure and DCO. For each patient, 9 PPCO algorithms and DCO were recorded before and at the peak effect for every haemodynamic challenge.ResultsSixty-two subjects were enrolled; 284 events were recorded, including 134 volume expansions and 150 vasopressor boluses. Among the 9 algorithms tested, the Liljestrand-Zander model led to the smallest bias (0.03 litre min(-1) [-1.31, +1.38] (0.21 litre min(-1) [-1.13; 1.54] after volume expansion and -0.13 litre min(-1) [-1.41, 1.15] after vasopressor use). The corresponding percentage of the concordance was 91% (86% after volume expansion and 94% after vasopressor use). The other algorithms, especially those using the Winkessel concept and the area under the pressure wave, were profoundly affected by the vasopressor.ConclusionsAmong the 9 PPCO algorithms examined, the Liljestrand-Zander model demonstrated the least bias and best limits of agreement, especially after vasopressor use. Using this particular algorithm in association with DCO calibration could represent a valuable option for continuous cardiac output monitoring of high risk patients.Clinical Trial RegistrationComité d'éthique de la Société de Réanimation de Langue Française No. 11-356.© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

28 keywords...

hide…