Premium
Comparison of cardiac output determined by arterial pulse pressure waveform analysis method (FloTrac/Vigileo) versus lithium dilution method in anesthetized dogs
Author(s) -
Valverde Alexander,
Gianotti Giacomo,
Rioja Eva,
Hathway Amanda
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of veterinary emergency and critical care
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.886
H-Index - 47
eISSN - 1476-4431
pISSN - 1479-3261
DOI - 10.1111/j.1476-4431.2011.00650.x
Subject(s) - cardiac output , repeatability , medicine , anesthesia , blood pressure , limits of agreement , mean arterial pressure , heart rate , hemodynamics , chemistry , chromatography , nuclear medicine
Objective– To compare the determination of cardiac output (CO) via arterial pulse pressure waveform analysis (FloTrac/Vigileo) versus lithium dilution method. Design– Prospective study. Setting– University teaching hospital. Animals– Six adult dogs. Interventions– Dogs were instrumented for CO determinations using lithium dilution (LiDCO) and FloTrac/Vigileo methods. Direct blood pressure, heart rate, arterial blood gases, and end‐tidal isoflurane (ETIso) and CO 2 concentrations were measured throughout the study while CO was manipulated with different depth of anesthesia and rapid administration of isotonic crystalloids at 60 mL/kg/h. Measurements and Main Results– Baseline CO measurements were obtained at 1.3% ETIso and were lowered by 3% ETIso. Measurements were obtained in duplicate or triplicate with LiDCO and averaged for comparison with corresponding values measured continuously with the FloTrac/Vigileo method. For 30 comparisons between methods, a mean bias of −100 mL/kg/min and 95% limits of agreement between −311 and +112 mL/kg/min (212 mL/kg/min) was determined. The mean (mL/kg/min) of the differences of LiDCO−Vigileo=62.0402+−0.8383 × Vigileo, and the correlation coefficient ( r ) between the 2 methods 0.70 for all CO determinations. The repeatability coefficients for the individual LiDCO and FloTrac/Vigileo methods were 187 and 400 mL/kg/min, respectively. Mean LiDCO and FloTrac/Vigileo values from all measurements were 145 ± 68 mL/kg/min (range, 64–354) and 244 ± 144 mL/kg/min (range, 89–624), respectively. The overall mean relative error was 48 ± 14%. Conclusion– The FloTrac/Vigileo overestimated CO values compared with LiDCO and the relative error was high, which makes this method unreliable for use in dogs.