Cardiac output measurement in liver transplantation patients using pulmonary and transpulmonary thermodilution: a comparative study
During liver transplantation surgery, the pulmonary artery catheter—despite its invasiveness—remains the gold standard for measuring cardiac output. However, the new EV1000 transpulmonary thermodilution calibration technique was recently introduced into the market by Edwards LifeSciences. We designed a single-center prospective observational study to determine if these two techniques for measuring cardiac output are interchangeable in this group of patients. Patients were monitored with both pulmonary artery catheter and the EV1000 system. Simultaneous intermittent cardiac output measurements were collected at predefined steps: after induction of anesthesia (T1), during the anhepatic phase (T2), after liver reperfusion (T3), and at the end of the surgery (T4). The 4-quadrant and polar plot techniques were used to assess trending ability between the two methods. We enrolled 49 patients who underwent orthotopic liver transplantation surgery. We analyzed a total of 588 paired measurements. The mean bias between pulmonary artery catheter and the EV1000 system was 0.35 L/min with 95% limits of agreement of − 2.30 to 3.01 L/min, and an overall percentage error of 35%. The concordance rate between the two techniques in 4-quadrant plot analysis was 65% overall. The concordance rate of the polar plot showed an overall value of 83% for all pairs. In the present study, in liver transplantation patients we found that intermittent cardiac output monitoring with EV1000 system showed a percentage error compared with pulmonary artery catheter in the acceptable threshold of 45%. On the others hand, our results showed a questionable trending ability between the two techniques.
KeywordsAnesthesia Cardiac output monitoring Liver transplantation Thermodilution
We are in great debt with all the others staff members.
LV, GDR, FB, EB, CM: study design; FD, CM, NL, FB, LV, GDR: patient recruitment and data collection; GM, FB, FD, LV: data analysis; LV, GDR, FB, FD, CM, NL, EB: writing paper; all authors: final approval of the version to be published.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
- 5.Siniscalchi A, Cucchetti A, Toccaceli L, Spiritoso R, Tommasoni E, Spedicato S, Dante A, Riganello L, Zanoni A, Cimatti M, Pierucci E, Bernardi E, Miklosova Z, Pinna AD, Faenza S. Pretransplant model for end-stage liver disease score as a predictor of postoperative complications after liver transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2009;41:1240–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Cecconi M, Rhodes A, Poloniecki J, Della Rocca G, Grounds RM. Bench-to-bedside review: the importance of the precision of the reference technique in method comparison studies—with specific reference to the measurement of cardiac output. Crit Care. 2009;13:20.Google Scholar
- 20.Grigorov Tzenkov I, Arnal Velasco D, Perez Peña JM, Olmedilla Arnal L, Garutti Martínez I, Sanz Fernández J. Cardiac output by femoral arterial thermodilution-calibrated pulse contour analysis during liver transplantation: comparison with pulmonary artery thermodilution. Transplant Proc. 2003;35:1920–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Feltracco P, Biancofiore G, Ori C, Saner FH, Della Rocca G. Limits and pitfalls of haemodynamic monitoring systems in liver transplantation surgery. Minerva Anesthesiol. 2012;78:1372–84.Google Scholar
- 23.Vilchez Monge AL, Tranche Alvarez-Cagigas I, Perez-Peña J, Olmedilla L, Jimeno C, Sanz J, Bellón Cano JM, Garutti I. Cardiac output monitoring with pulmonary versus transpulmonary thermodilution during liver transplantation: interchangeable methods? Minerva Anesthesiol. 2014;80:1178–87.Google Scholar