Comparison of two continuous non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring techniques in the perioperative setting
Keywords: haemodynamic monitoring, cardiac output, non-invasive, intraoperative, pulse wave analysis, bioimpedance
AbstractBackground. The aim of the study was to identify the accuracy of and agreement between two non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring techniques in the perioperative setting – thoracic electrical bioimpedance (TEB) and Edwards Lifesciences ClearSight system (CS). Materials and methods. The study included ten patients. Parametric quantitative data were expressed as mean ± SD. The ShapiroWilk test was used to test the normality of the distributions. A linear regression model was used to measure the strength of the linear relationship between TEB and CS. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the mean difference, precision, and the limits of agreements (LOA). The Critchley and Critchley method was used to calculate the percentage error (PE), and if <30%, it was considered clinically acceptable. Results. Ten patients were involved in our study. The mean cardiac output (CO) with TEB was 6.15 ± 1.14 L/min vs. 4.78 ± 1.40 L/min with CS (p < 0.01). The relationship was significant (n = 144; r2 = 0.7; p < 0.01). The mean bias, LOA, and PE were 1.37 ± 1.01 L/min, 3.35 L/min and –0.61 L/min and 36.22%, respectively. The mean stroke volume index (SVI) with TEB was 48.64 ± 9.8 ml/beat/m2 vs. 37.12 ± 9.14 ml/beat/m2 with CS (p < 0.01). The relationship was significant (n = 144; r2 = 0.65; p < 0.01). The mean bias, LOA, and PE were 11.52 ± 7.92 ml/beat/m2, 27.04 ml/beat/m2 and –4 ml/beat/m2 and 36.19%. Conclusions. The two methods of non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring are not compatible in the perioperative setting. However, the CS system has more advantages in terms of continuity and simplicity of monitoring, while measurements of TEB are interrupted by electrocautery.