Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Print publication year: 2014
  • Online publication date: September 2014

Chapter 16 - Semi-invasive and non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring systems

from Section 3 - Hemodynamic Monitoring in the Perioperative Environment

Related content

Powered by UNSILO


1. PinskyMR, PayenD. Functional hemodynamic monitoring. Crit Care 2005;9:566–72.
2. DarkPM, SingerM. The validity of trans-esophageal Doppler ultrasonography as a measure of cardiac output in critically ill adults. Intensive Care Med 2004;30:2060–6.
3. SchoberP, LoerSA, SchwarteLA. Perioperative hemodynamic monitoring with transesophageal Doppler technology. Anesth Analg 2009;109:340–53.
4. LefrantJY, BruelleP, AyaAG, et al. Training is required to improve the reliability of esophageal Doppler to measure cardiac output in critically ill patients. Intens Care Med 1998;24:347–52.
5. TanHL, PinderM, ParsonsR, et al. Clinical evaluation of USCOM ultrasonic cardiac output monitor in cardiac surgical patients in intensive care unit. Br J Anaesth 2005;94:287–91.
6. ChandR, MehtaY, TrehanN. Cardiac output estimation with a new Doppler device after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2006;20:315–19.
7. ChongSW, PeytonPJ. A meta-analysis of the accuracy and precision of the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM). Anaesthesia 2012;67:1266–71.
8. MarikPE. Noninvasive cardiac output monitors: a state-of the-art review. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2013;27:121–34.
9. MayerJ, SuttnerS. Cardiac output derived from arterial pressure waveform. Curr Opin Anaes 2009;22:804–8.
10. de WaalEE, KalkmanCJ, RexS, et al. Validation of a new arterial pulse contour-based cardiac output device. Crit Care Med 2007;35:1904–9.
11. MonnetX, AnguelN, NaudinB, et al. Arterial pressure-based cardiac output in septic patients: different accuracy of pulse contour and uncalibrated pressure waveform devices. Crit Care 2010;14:R109.
12. ZimmermannA, KufnerC, HofbauerS, et al. The accuracy of the Vigileo/FloTrac continuous cardiac output monitor. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2008;22:388–93.
13. BiaisM, Nouette-GaulainK, CottenceauV, et al. Cardiac output measurement in patients undergoing liver transplantation: pulmonary artery catheter versus uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis. Anesth Analg 2008;106:1480–6.
14. BiancofioreG, CritchleyLA, LeeA, et al. Evaluation of an uncalibrated arterial pulse contour cardiac output monitoring system in cirrhotic patients undergoing liver surgery. Br J Anaesth 2009;102:47–54.
15. ChattiR, de RudnikiS, MarqueS, et al. Comparison of two versions of the Vigileo-FloTrac system (1.03 and 1.07) for stroke volume estimation: a multicentre, blinded comparison with oesophageal Doppler measurements. Br J Anaesth 2009;102:463–9.
16. HadianM, KimHK, SeverynDA, et al. Cross-comparison of cardiac output trending accuracy of LiDCO, PiCCO, FloTrac and pulmonary artery catheters. Crit Care 2010;14:R212.
17. De BackerD, MarxG, TanA, et al. Arterial pressure-based cardiac output monitoring: a multicenter validation of the third-generation software in septic patients. Intensive Care Med 2011;37:233–40.
18. MengL, TranNP, AlexanderBS, et al. The impact of phenylephrine, ephedrine, and increased preload on third-generation Vigileo-FloTrac and esophageal doppler cardiac output measurements. Anesth Analg 2011;113:751–7.
19. MonnetX, AnguelN, JozwiakM, et al. Third-generation FloTrac/Vigileo does not reliably track changes in cardiac output induced by norepinephrine in critically ill patients. Br J Anaesth 2012;108:615–22.
20. BiaisM, Nouette-GaulainK, CottenceauV, et al. Uncalibrated pulse contour-derived stroke volume variation predicts fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients undergoing liver transplantation. Br J Anaesth 2008;101:761–8.
21. BiaisM, Nouette-GaulainK, QuinartA, et al. Uncalibrated stroke volume variations are able to predict the hemodynamic effects of positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome after liver transplantation. Anesthesiology 2009;111:855–62.
22. BiaisM, VidilL, SarrabayP, et al. Changes in stroke volume induced by passive leg raising in spontaneously breathing patients: comparison between echocardiography and Vigileo/FloTrac device. Crit Care 2009;13:R195.
23. FranchiF, SilvestriR, CubattoliL, et al. Comparison between an uncalibrated pulse contour method and thermodilution technique for cardiac output estimation in septic patients. Br J Anaesth 2011;107:202–8.
24. GiomarelliP, BiagioliB, ScollettaS. Cardiac output monitoring by pressure recording analytical method in cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothoracic Surg 2004;26:515–20.
25. RomanoSM, PistolesiM. Assessment of cardiac output from systemic arterial pressure in humans. Crit Care Med 2002;30:1834–41.
26. ScollettaS, RomanoSM, BiagioliB, et al. Pressure recording analytical method (PRAM) for measurement of cardiac output during various haemodynamic states. Br J Anaesth 2005;95:159–65.
27. BiaisM, CottenceauV, JeanM, et al. Evaluation of stroke volume variations obtained with the pressure recording analytic method. Crit Care Med 2012;40:369–71.
28. MajG, MonacoF, LandoniG, et al. Cardiac index assessment by the pressure recording analytic method in unstable patients with atrial fibrillation. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2011;25:476–80.
29. PaarmannH, GroesdonkHV, Sedemund-AdibB, et al. Lack of agreement between pulmonary arterial thermodilution cardiac output and the pressure recording analytical method in postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Br J Anaesth 2011;106:475–81.
30. CecconiM, DawsonD, GroundsRM, et al. Lithium dilution cardiac output measurement in the critically ill patient: determination of precision of the technique. Intensive Care Med 2009;35:498–504.
31. CecconiM, FawcettJ, GroundsRM, et al. A prospective study to evaluate the accuracy of pulse power analysis to monitor cardiac output in critically ill patients. BMC Anesthesiol 2008;8:3.
32. WesselingKH, JansenJR, SettelsJJ, et al. Computation of aortic flow from pressure in humans using a nonlinear, three-element model. J Appl Physiol 1993;74:2566–73.
33. WesterhofN, ElzingaG, SipkemaP. An artificial arterial system for pumping hearts. J Appl Physiol 1971;31:776–81.
34. JansenJR, SchreuderJJ, MulierJP, et al. A comparison of cardiac output derived from the arterial pressure wave against thermodilution in cardiac surgery patients. Br J Anaesth 2001;87:212–22.
35. HarmsMP, WesselingKH, PottF, et al. Continuous stroke volume monitoring by modelling flow from non-invasive measurement of arterial pressure in humans under orthostatic stress. Clin Sci 1999;97:291–301.
36. JellemaWT, WesselingKH, GroeneveldAB, et al. Continuous cardiac output in septic shock by simulating a model of the aortic input impedance: a comparison with bolus injection thermodilution. Anesthesiology 1999;90:1317–28.
37. BrochO, RennerJ, GruenewaldM, et al. A comparison of the Nexfin(R) and transcardiopulmonary thermodilution to estimate cardiac output during coronary artery surgery. Anaesthesia 2012;67:377–83.
38. MartinaJR, WesterhofBE, van GoudoeverJ, et al. Noninvasive continuous arterial blood pressure monitoring with Nexfin(R). Anesthesiology 2012;116:1092–103.
39. Bubenek-TurconiSI, CraciunM, MicleaI, et al. Noninvasive continuous cardiac output by the Nexfin before and After preload-modifying maneuvers: a comparison with intermittent thermodilution cardiac output. Anesth Analg 2013;117:366–72.
40. FischerMO, CoucoravasJ, TruongJ, et al. Assessment of changes in cardiac index and fluid responsiveness: a comparison of Nexfin and transpulmonary thermodilution. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2013;57:704–12.
41. MonnetX, PicardF, LidzborskiE, et al. The estimation of cardiac output by the Nexfin device is of poor reliability for tracking the effects of a fluid challenge. Crit Care 2012;16:R212.
42. FunkDJ, MorettiEW, GanTJ. Minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring in the perioperative setting. Anesth Analg 2009;108:887–97.
43. RoccoM, SpadettaG, MorelliA, et al. A comparative evaluation of thermodilution and partial CO2 rebreathing techniques for cardiac output assessment in critically ill patients during assisted ventilation. Intens Care Med 2004;30:82–7.
44. TachibanaK, ImanakaH, TakeuchiM, et al. Effects of reduced rebreathing time, in spontaneously breathing patients, on respiratory effort and accuracy in cardiac output measurement when using a partial carbon dioxide rebreathing technique: a prospective observational study. Crit Care 2005;9:R569–74.
45. de WaalEE, KoningsMK, KalkmanCJ, et al. Assessment of stroke volume index with three different bioimpedance algorithms: lack of agreement compared to thermodilution. Intens Care Med 2008;34:735–9.
46. MarikPE, PendeltonJE, SmithR. A comparison of hemodynamic parameters derived from transthoracic electrical bioimpedance with those parameters obtained by thermodilution and ventricular angiography. Crit Care Med 1997;25:1545–50.
47. MausTM, ReberB, BanksDA, et al. Cardiac output determination from endotracheally measured impedance cardiography: clinical evaluation of endotracheal cardiac output monitor. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2011;25:770–5.
48. van der KleijSC, KoolenBB, NewhallDA, et al. Clinical evaluation of a new tracheal impedance cardiography method. Anaesthesia 2012;67:729–33.
49. FellahiJL, FischerMO, RebetO, et al. A comparison of endotracheal bioimpedance cardiography and transpulmonary thermodilution in cardiac surgery patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2012;26:217–22.
50. BenomarB, OuattaraA, EstagnasieP, et al. Fluid responsiveness predicted by noninvasive bioreactance-based passive leg raise test. Intens Care Med 2010;36:1875–81.
51. SquaraP, DenjeanD, EstagnasieP, et al. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation. Intens Care Med 2007;33:1191–4.
52. ConwayDH, HussainOA, GallI. A comparison of noninvasive bioreactance with oesophageal Doppler estimation of stroke volume during open abdominal surgery: an observational study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2013;30:501–8.
53. HoferCK, BuhlmannS, KlaghoferR, et al. Pulsed dye densitometry with two different sensor types for cardiac output measurement after cardiac surgery: a comparison with the thermodilution technique. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2004;48:653–7.
54. IshiharaH, OkawaH, TanabeK, et al. A new non-invasive continuous cardiac output trend solely utilizing routine cardiovascular monitors. J Clin Monitor Comp 2004;18:313–20.
55. BatailleB, BertuitM, MoraM, et al. Comparison of esCCO and transthoracic echocardiography for non-invasive measurement of cardiac output intensive care. Br J Anaesth 2012;109:879–86.
56. IshiharaH, SugoY, TsutsuiM, et al. The ability of a new continuous cardiac output monitor to measure trends in cardiac output following implementation of a patient information calibration and an automated exclusion algorithm. J Clin Monitor Comp 2012;26:465–71.
57. BiaisM, OuattaraA, JanvierG, et al. Case scenario: respiratory variations in arterial pressure for guiding fluid management in mechanically ventilated patients. Anesthesiology 2012;116:1354–61.
58. CannessonM. Arterial pressure variation and goal-directed fluid therapy. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2010;24:487–97.
59. MarikPE, CavallazziR, VasuT, et al. Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: A systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med 2009;37:2642–7.
60. BerkenstadtH, MargalitN, HadaniM, et al. Stroke volume variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing brain surgery. Anesth Analg 2001;92:984–9.
61. CecconiM, MontiG, HamiltonMA, et al. Efficacy of functional hemodynamic parameters in predicting fluid responsiveness with pulse power analysis in surgical patients. Minerva anestesiologica 2012;78:527–33.
62. CannessonM, SliekerJ, DesebbeO, et al. The ability of a novel algorithm for automatic estimation of the respiratory variations in arterial pulse pressure to monitor fluid responsiveness in the operating room. Anesth Analg 2008;106:1195–200.
63. AulerJO, Jr., GalasF, HajjarL, et al. Online monitoring of pulse pressure variation to guide fluid therapy after cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg 2008;106:1201–6.
64. PestelG, FukuiK, HartwichV, et al. Automatic algorithm for monitoring systolic pressure variation and difference in pulse pressure. Anesth Analg 2009;108:1823–9.
65. MonnetX, RienzoM, OsmanD, et al. Esophageal Doppler monitoring predicts fluid responsiveness in critically ill ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med 2005;31:1195–201.
66. BiaisM, SteckenL, OttolenghiL, et al. The ability of pulse pressure variations obtained with CNAP device to predict fluid responsiveness in the operating room. Anesth Analg 2011;113:523–8.
67. MonnetX, DresM, FerreA, et al. Prediction of fluid responsiveness by a continuous non-invasive assessment of arterial pressure in critically ill patients: comparison with four other dynamic indices. Br J Anaesth 2012;109:330–8.
68. CannessonM, AttofY, RosamelP, et al. Respiratory variations in pulse oximetry plethysmographic waveform amplitude to predict fluid responsiveness in the operating room. Anesthesiology 2007;106:1105–11.
69. DesebbeO, CannessonM. Using ventilation-induced plethysmographic variations to optimize patient fluid status. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2008;21:772–8.
70. BiaisM, CottenceauV, PetitL, et al. Impact of norepinephrine on the relationship between pleth variability index and pulse pressure variations in ICU adult patients. Crit Care 2011;15:R168.
71. MonnetX, GuerinL, JozwiakM, et al. Pleth variability index is a weak predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients receiving norepinephrine. Br J Anaesth 2013;110:207–13.
72. HamiltonMA, CecconiM, RhodesA. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of preemptive hemodynamic intervention to improve postoperative outcomes in moderate and high-risk surgical patients. Anesth Analg 2011;112:1392–402.
73. PhanTD, IsmailH, HeriotAG, et al. Improving perioperative outcomes: fluid optimization with the esophageal Doppler monitor, a metaanalysis and review. J Am Coll Surg 2008;207:935–41.
74.NICE Draft Guidance on Cardiac Output Monitoring Device Published for Consultation. In, editor.
75. ValletB, BlanloeilY, CholleyB, et al. Guidelines for perioperative haemodynamic optimization. Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation 2013;32:454–62.
76. BenesJ, ChytraI, AltmannP, et al. Intraoperative fluid optimization using stroke volume variation in high risk surgical patients: results of prospective randomized study. Crit Care 2010;14:R118.
77. CecconiM, FasanoN, LangianoN, et al. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during elective total hip arthroplasty under regional anaesthesia. Crit Care 2011;15:R132.
78. MayerJ, BoldtJ, MengistuAM, et al. Goal-directed intraoperative therapy based on autocalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis reduces hospital stay in high-risk surgical patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care 2010;14:R18.
79. BiaisM. Stroke volume variation: just a fancy tool or a therapeutic goal?Crit Care Med 2012;40:335–6.
80. LopesMR, OliveiraMA, PereiraVO, et al. Goal-directed fluid management based on pulse pressure variation monitoring during high-risk surgery: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Crit Care 2007;11:R100.
81. RamsinghDS, SanghviC, GamboaJ, et al. Outcome impact of goal directed fluid therapy during high risk abdominal surgery in low to moderate risk patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Clini monit Comput 2013;27:24–57.
82. AlhashemiJA, CecconiM, HoferCK. Cardiac output monitoring: an integrative perspective. Crit Care 2011;15:214.
83. CecconiM, CorredorC, ArulkumaranN, et al. Clinical review: goal-directed therapy – what is the evidence in surgical patients? The effect on different risk groups. Crit Care 2013;17:209.