Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • 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

References

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 http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/pressreleases/DraftGuidanceOnCardiacOutputMonitoringDevice.jsp, 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.