Advertisement

Cardiac index measurements by transcutaneous Doppler ultrasound and transthoracic echocardiography in adult and pediatric emergency patients

  • H. Bryant Nguyen
  • Daryl P. Banta
  • Gail Stewart
  • Tommy Kim
  • Ramesh Bansal
  • James Anholm
  • William A. Wittlake
  • Stephen W. Corbett
Article

Abstract

Introduction

Non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring may facilitate resuscitation in critically ill patients. Validation studies examining a transcutaneous Doppler ultrasound technology, USCOM-1A, using pulmonary artery catheter as the reference standard showed varying results. In this study, we compared non-invasive cardiac index (CI) measurements by USCOM-1A with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE).

Methods

This study was a prospective, observational cohort study at a university tertiary-care emergency department, enrolling a convenience sample of adult and pediatric patients. Paired measures of CI, stroke volume index (SVI), aortic outflow tract diameter (OTD), velocity time integral (VTI) were obtained using USCOM-1A and TTE. Pearson’s correlation and Bland–Altman analyses were performed.

Results

One-hundred and sixteen subjects were enrolled, with obtainable USCOM-1A CI measurements for 99 subjects (55 adults age 50 ± 20 years and 44 children age 11 ± 4 years) in the final analysis. Cardiac, gastrointestinal and infectious illnesses were the most common presenting diagnostic categories. The reference standard TTE measurements of CI, SVI, OTD, and VTI in all subjects were 3.08 ± 1.18 L/min/m2, 37.10 ± 10.91 mL/m2, 1.92 ± 0.36 cm, and 20.36 ± 4.53 cm, respectively. Intra-operator reliability of USCOM-1A CI measurements showed a correlation coefficient of r = 0.79, with 11 ± 22% difference between repeated measures. The bias and limits of agreement of USCOM-1A compared to TTE CI were 0.58 (−1.48 to 2.63) L/min/m2. The percent difference in CI measurements with USCOM-1A was 31 ± 28% relative to TTE measurements.

Conclusions

The USCOM-1A hemodynamic monitoring technology showed poor correlation and agreement to standard transthoracic echocardiography measures of cardiac function. The utility of USCOM-1A in the management of critically ill patients remains to be determined.

Keywords

cardiac index non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring USCOM-1A transcutaneous Doppler ultrasound transthoracic echocardiography 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was partially funded by USCOM Pty Ltd, Australia. USCOM Pty Ltd did not participate in the study design or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References

  1. 1.
    Shure D. Pulmonary-artery catheters—peace at last? N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2273–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaney JC, Derdak S. Minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring for the intensivist: current and emerging technology. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:2338–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Knirsch W, Kretschmar O, Tomaske M, et al. Cardiac output measurement in children: comparison of the Ultrasound Cardiac Output Monitor with thermodilution cardiac output measurement. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34:1060–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wong LS, Yong BH, Young KK, et al. Comparison of the USCOM ultrasound cardiac output monitor with pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2008;14:1038–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chan JS, Segara D, Nair P. Measurement of cardiac output with a non-invasive continuous wave Doppler device versus the pulmonary artery catheter: a comparative study. Crit Care Resusc. 2006;8:309–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Lelyveld-Haas LE, van Zanten AR, Borm GF, Tjan DH. Clinical validation of the non-invasive cardiac output monitor USCOM-1A in critically ill patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2008;25:917–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knobloch K, Tepe J, Lichtinghagen R, Luck HJ, Vogt PM. Simultaneous hemodynamic and serological cardiotoxicity monitoring during immunotherapy with trastuzumab. Int J Cardiol. 2008;125:113–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teoh WH, Sia AT. Colloid preload versus coload for spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: the effects on maternal cardiac output. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:1592–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Knobloch K, Hubrich V, Rohmann P, et al. Non-invasive determination of cardiac output by continuous wave Doppler in air rescue service. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2005;40:750–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gunn SR, Fink MP, Wallace B. Equipment review: the success of early goal-directed therapy for septic shock prompts evaluation of current approaches for monitoring the adequacy of resuscitation. Crit Care. 2005;9:349–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nguyen HB, Losey T, Rasmussen J, et al. Interrater reliability of cardiac output measurements by transcutaneous Doppler ultrasound: implications for noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2006;24:828–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stewart GM, Nguyen HB, Kim TY, Jauregui J, Hayes SR, Corbett S. Inter-rater reliability for noninvasive measurement of cardiac function in children. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2008;24:433–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dey I, Sprivulis P. Emergency physicians can reliably assess emergency department patient cardiac output using the USCOM continuous wave Doppler cardiac output monitor. Emerg Med Australas. 2005;17:193–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Critchley LA, Critchley JA. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput. 1999;15:85–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McGee S, Abernethy WB III, Simel DL. The rational clinical examination. Is this patient hypovolemic? JAMA. 1999;281:1022–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schedler O, Handschak H, Hensel M. Non-invasive cardiac output measurement with USCOM in air rescue operation. Ultraschall Med. 2008;29(Suppl 5):256–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knobloch K. Non-invasive determination of stroke volume and cardiac output after high intensity playing exercise in elite female soccer players. Int J Cardiol. 2009;132:267–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Corley A, Barnett AG, Mullany D, Fraser JF. Nurse-determined assessment of cardiac output. Comparing a non-invasive cardiac output device and pulmonary artery catheter: a prospective observational study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46:1291–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dark PM, Singer M. The validity of trans-esophageal Doppler ultrasonography as a measure of cardiac output in critically ill adults. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:2060–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nidorf SM, Picard MH, Triulzi MO, et al. New perspectives in the assessment of cardiac chamber dimensions during development and adulthood. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19:983–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siu L, Tucker A, Manikappa SK, Monagle J. Does patient position influence Doppler signal quality from the USCOM ultrasonic cardiac output monitor? Anesth Analg. 2008;106:1798–802.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robson SC, Murray A, Peart I, Heads A, Hunter S. Reproducibility of cardiac output measurement by cross sectional and Doppler echocardiography. Br Heart J. 1988;59:680–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yajima T, Nitta M, Nakamura S, et al. Reliability of Doppler echocardiographic stroke volume measurement. Bull Tokyo Med Dent Univ. 1992;39:55–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest. 2008;134:172–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pinsky MR. Functional hemodynamic monitoring. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28:386–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Michard F, Teboul JL. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121:2000–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Knobloch K, Tepe J, Rossner D, et al. Combined NT-pro-BNP and CW-Doppler ultrasound cardiac output monitoring (USCOM) in epirubicin and liposomal doxorubicin therapy. Int J Cardiol. 2008;128:316–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Siu CW, Tse HF, Lee K, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy optimization by ultrasonic cardiac output monitoring (USCOM) device. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007;30:50–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sturgess DJ, Pascoe RL, Scalia G, Venkatesh B. A comparison of transcutaneous Doppler corrected flow time, b-type natriuretic peptide and central venous pressure as predictors of fluid responsiveness in septic shock: a preliminary evaluation. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2010;38:336–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Trinkmann F, Doesch C, Papavassiliu T, et al. A novel noninvasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance. Clin Cardiol. 2010;33:E8–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thom O, Taylor DM, Wolfe RE, et al. Comparison of a supra-sternal cardiac output monitor (USCOM) with the pulmonary artery catheter. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103:800–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Phillips R, Lichtenthal P, Sloniger J, Burstow D, West M, Copeland J. Noninvasive cardiac output measurement in heart failure subjects on circulatory support. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:881–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saur J, Trinkmann F, Weissmann J, Borggrefe M, Kaden JJ. Non-invasive determination of cardiac output: comparison of a novel CW Doppler ultrasonic technique and inert gas rebreathing. Int J Cardiol. 2009;136:248–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Su B, Yu H, Yang M, et al. Reliability of a new ultrasonic cardiac output monitor in recipients of living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2008;14:1029–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Van den Oever HL, Murphy EJ, Christie-Taylor GA. USCOM (Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitors) lacks agreement with thermodilution cardiac output and transoesophageal echocardiography valve measurements. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35:903–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chand R, Mehta Y, Trehan N. Cardiac output estimation with a new Doppler device after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2006;20:315–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tan HL, Pinder M, Parsons R, Roberts B, van Heerden PV. Clinical evaluation of USCOM ultrasonic cardiac output monitor in cardiac surgical patients in intensive care unit. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94:287–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Knobloch K, Lichtenberg A, Winterhalter M, Rossner D, Pichlmaier M, Phillips R. Non-invasive cardiac output determination by two-dimensional independent Doppler during and after cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80:1479–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Critchley LA, Peng ZY, Fok BS, Lee A, Phillips RA. Testing the reliability of a new ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, the USCOM, by using aortic flowprobes in anesthetized dogs. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:748–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Bryant Nguyen
    • 1
    • 4
  • Daryl P. Banta
    • 4
  • Gail Stewart
    • 2
  • Tommy Kim
    • 2
  • Ramesh Bansal
    • 3
  • James Anholm
    • 4
  • William A. Wittlake
    • 1
  • Stephen W. Corbett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Emergency Medicine, Loma Linda University Medical CenterLoma Linda UniversityLoma LindaUSA
  2. 2.Division of Pediatric Emergency MedicineLoma Linda UniversityLoma LindaUSA
  3. 3.Division of CardiologyLoma Linda UniversityLoma LindaUSA
  4. 4.Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of MedicineLoma Linda UniversityLoma LindaUSA

Personalised recommendations