Estimation of cardiac output variations induced by hemodynamic interventions using multi-beat analysis of arterial waveform: a comparative off-line study with transesophageal Doppler method during non-cardiac surgery

• Published in: Journal of clinical monitoring and computing Vol. 36; no. 2; pp. 501 - 510
• Main Authors: Le Gall, Arthur, Vallée, Fabrice, Joachim, Jona, Hong, Alex, Matéo, Joaquim, Mebazaa, Alexandre, Gayat, Etienne
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01.04.2022; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Accuracy; Algorithms; Anesthesiology; Carbon monoxide; Cardiac output; Critical Care Medicine; Evaluation; Exclusion zones; Health Sciences; Hemodynamics; Hypotension; Intensive; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Original Research; Statistics for Life Sciences; Surgery; Wave reflection; Waveforms; Fluid challenge; Multi-beat analysis of the radial pressure waveform; Vasopressors; Pulse contour analysis; Cardiac output monitoring; Trans-esophageal doppler
• ISSN: 1387-1307; 1573-2614
• DOI: 10.1007/s10877-021-00679-z

Multi-beat analysis (MBA) of the radial arterial pressure (AP) waveform is a new method that may improve cardiac output (CO) estimation via modelling of the confounding arterial wave reflection. We evaluated the precision and accuracy using the trending ability of the MBA method to estimate absolute CO and variations (ΔCO) during hemodynamic challenges. We reviewed the hemodynamic challenges (fluid challenge or vasopressors) performed when intra-operative hypotension occurred during non-cardiac surgery. The CO was calculated offline using transesophageal Doppler (TED) waveform (CO TED ) or via application of the MBA algorithm onto the AP waveform (CO MBA ) before and after hemodynamic challenges. We evaluated the precision and the accuracy according to the Bland & Altman method. We also assessed the trending ability of the MBA by evaluating the percentage of concordance with 15% exclusion zone between ΔCO MBA and ΔCO TED . A non-inferiority margin was set at 87.5%. Among the 58 patients included, 23 (40%) received at least 1 fluid challenge, and 46 (81%) received at least 1 bolus of vasopressors. Before treatment, the CO TED was 5.3 (IQR [4.1–8.1]) l min −1 , and the CO MBA was 4.1 (IQR [3–5.4]) l min −1 . The agreement between CO TED and CO MBA was poor with a 70% percentage error. The bias and lower and upper limits of agreement between CO TED and CO MBA were 0.9 (CI 95  = 0.82 to 1.07) l min −1 , −2.8 (CI 95  = −2.71 to−2.96) l min −1 and 4.7 (CI 95  = 4.61 to 4.86) l min −1 , respectively. After hemodynamic challenge, the percentage of concordance (PC) with 15% exclusion zone for ΔCO was 93 (CI 97.5  = 90 to 97)%. In this retrospective offline analysis, the accuracy, limits of agreements and percentage error between TED and MBA for the absolute estimation of CO were poor, but the MBA could adequately track induced CO variations measured by TED. The MBA needs further evaluation in prospective studies to confirm those results in clinical practice conditions.