Agreement of cardiac index measurements between ultrasonic cardiac output monitor and transthoracic echocardiography in neonates

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Aug 27, 2024
https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v102i9.5095
Download
pdf
Vol. 102 No. 9 (2024): Tunis Med sept 2024

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Khaled Menif
Pediatric intensive care unit - Children’s hospital Béchir Hamza of Tunis- Faculty of Medicine of Tunis-University of Tunis of EL-Manar- Tunisia
Ahmed Ayari
Pediatric intensive care unit - Children’s hospital Béchir Hamza of Tunis- Faculty of Medicine of Tunis-University of Tunis of EL-Manar- Tunisia
Assaad Louati
Pediatric intensive care unit - Children’s hospital Béchir Hamza of Tunis- Faculty of Medicine of Tunis-University of Tunis of EL-Manar- Tunisia
Shatila Ibn Haj Hassine
Pediatric intensive care unit - Children’s hospital Béchir Hamza of Tunis- Faculty of Medicine of Tunis-University of Tunis of EL-Manar- Tunisia
Asma Bouziri
Pediatric intensive care unit - Children’s hospital Béchir Hamza of Tunis- Faculty of Medicine of Tunis-University of Tunis of EL-Manar- Tunisia
Aida Borgi
Pediatric intensive care unit - Children’s hospital Béchir Hamza of Tunis- Faculty of Medicine of Tunis-University of Tunis of EL-Manar- Tunisia

Abstract

Objectives : To evaluate the agreement of  cardiac index (CI) calculated by Ultrasonic sonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) and  transthoracic thoracic echocardiography (TTE) in order to know if we can recommend USCOM in our pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).


Design : Prospective observational evaluative study carried out over a period of 3 months


Setting: PICU at children's hospital in Tunis


Participants: All newborns without tracheostomy or a known congenital heart disease, admitted to the PICU during the study period were enrolled.


Interventions: Paired and consecutive measurements of CI were obtained in all patients with both technologies. All measurements by TTE and USCOM were performed by two distinct operators. It is the average of three successive measures of the CI, in the same patient, with each technology, which was considered.


Agreement of CI between the 2  techniques was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis and percentage error.


Measurements and Main Results : Forty-two infants  were analyzed with the mean (standard deviation) gestation 36 weeks ( 5 days), age 1 days (1.09) , and weight 2.9 kg (0.87). Respiratory  failure was the main cause of admission 75%. At the time of the study, 33 (75.%) patients were ventilated artificially. Bias (mean difference) of the CI between the two methods was 1.2 l/min/m2 and precision (± 2 SD of differences) was 1.08 l/min/m2.


The MPE of CI measurement for USCOM vs TTE was 54.9%.


Conclusions : The USCOM showed a poor agreement to TTE measures of CI. The two methods cannot be considered interchangeable.

Keywords:

Cardiac output, newborn, echocardiography, monitoring, USCOM, noninvasive cardiac output monitoring

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

  1. (1) Tibby SM, Hatherill M, Marsh MJ, et al. Clinicians’ abilities to estimate cardiac index in ventilated children and infants. Arch Dis Child.1997; 77: 516–518.
  2. (2) 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: 309–314.
  3. (3) Horster S, Stemmler HJ, Sparrer J, et al. Mechanical ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure in critically ill patients : comparison of CW-Doppler ultrasound cardiac output monitoring ( USCOM ) and thermodilution ( PiCCO ). Acta Cardiol.2012; 67: 177–185.
  4. (4) 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: 315–319.
  5. (5) Knobloch K, Lichtenberg A, Winterhalter M, et al.Non-invasive cardiac output determination by two-dimensional independent Doppler during and after cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005; 80: 1479–1483.
  6. (6) Arora D, Chand R, Mehta Y, et al. Cardiac output estimation after off-pump coronary artery bypass: a comparison of two different techniques. Ann Card Anaesth.2007; 10 (2) 132–136.
  7. (7) Lai WW, Geva T, Shirali GS, et al. Task Force of the Pediatric Council of the American Society of Echocardiography.Guidelines and Standards for Performance of a Pediatric Echocardiogram: A Report from the Task Force of the Pediatric Council of the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr.2006;19: 1413–1430.
  8. (8) Klugman D, Berger JT.Echocardiography as a hemodynamic monitor in critically ill children. Pediatr Crit Care Med.2011; 12: S50–S54.
  9. (9) Critchley LA, Peng ZY, Fok BS, et al.Testing the reliability of a new ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, the USCOM, by using aortic flowprobes in anesthetized dogs. Anesth Analg.2005; 100: 748–753.
  10. (10) Corley A, Barnett AG, Mullany D, et al.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: 1291–1297.
  11. (11) Wong L-SG, Yong B-H, Young KK, et al. Comparison of the USCOM Ultrasound Cardiac Output Monitor with Pulmonary Artery Catheter Thermodilution in Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation. Liver Transplant. 2008; 14: 1038–1043.
  12. (12) Su B-C, Yu H-P, Yang M-W,et al. Reliability of a New Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor in Recipients of Living Donor Liver Transplantation. Liver Transplant.2008; 14: 1029–1037.
  13. (13) Van DenOever HLA, Murphy EJ. USCOM (Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitors) lacks agreement with thermodilution cardiac output and transoesophageal echocardiography valve measurements. 2007; 903–910.
  14. (14) 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: 800–804.
  15. (15) Tan HL, Pinder M, Parsons R, et al. Clinical evaluation of USCOM ultrasonic cardiac output monitor in cardiac surgical patients in intensive care unit. Br J Anaesth.2005; 94: 287–291.
  16. (16) van Lelyveld-Haas LEM, van Zanten a RH, Borm GF, et al. Clinical validation of the non-invasive cardiac output monitor USCOM-1A in critically ill patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol.2008; 25: 917–24.
  17. (17) Patel N, Dodsworth M, Mills JF. Cardiac output measurement in newborn infants using the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor: an assessment of agreement with conventional echocardiography, repeatability and new user experience. Arch Dis Child - Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2011; 96: F206-11.
  18. (18) Wongsirimetheekul T, Khositseth A, Lertbunrian R. Non-invasive cardiac output assessment in critically ill paediatric patients. Acta Cardiol.2014; 69: 167–173.
  19. (19) Nguyen HB, Banta DP, Stewart G, et al. Cardiac index measurements by transcutaneous doppler ultrasound and transthoracic echocardiography in adult and pediatric emergency patients. J Clin Monit Comput.2010; 24: 237–247.
  20. (20) Beltramo F, Menteer J, Razavi A, et al. Letter to Editor: Reliability of the Ultrasound Cardiac Output Monitor for Pediatric Patients. Pediatr Cardiol. 2016; 37: 1189–1190.
  21. (21) 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: 1060–1064.
  22. (22) Beltramo F, Menteer J, Razavi A,et al.Validation of an Ultrasound Cardiac Output Monitor as a Bedside Tool for Pediatric Patients. Pediatr Cardiol. 2016;37: 177–183.
  23. (23) 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: 193–199.
  24. (24] Mellander M, Sabel K-G, Caidahl K, et al. Doppler Determination of Cardiac Output in Infants and Children: Comparison with Simultaneous Thermodilution. Pediatr Cardiol.1987; 8: 241–246.
  25. (25) Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet.1986; 68: 307.
  26. (26) Critchley LAH, Critchley JAJH. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput.1999; 15: 85–91.
  27. (27) Bartko JJ. The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep. 1996; 19: 3–11.
  28. (28) Stewart GM, Nguyen HB, Kim TY, et al. Inter-rater reliability for noninvasive measurement of cardiac function in children. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2008; 24: 433–437.
  29. (29) Dhanani S, Barrowman NJ, Ward RE,et al. Intra- and inter-observer reliability using a noninvasive ultrasound cardiac output monitor in healthy anesthetized children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2011; 21: 858–864.
  30. (30) Meyer S, Todd D, Shadboldt B. Assessment of portable continuous wave Doppler ultrasound (ultrasonic cardiac output monitor) for cardiac output measurements in neonates. J Paediatr Child Health. 2009; 45: 464–468.
  31. (31) Pliauckiene A , Liubsys A, Vankeviciene R, Usonis V.Ultrasonic cardiac output monitor provides effective non‐invasive bedside measurements of neonatal cardiac output. J Clin Monit Comput. 2022 Jun;36(3):803-807
  32. (32) Fraga MV, Dysart KC, Rintoul N, et al. Cardiac Output Measurement Using the Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor: A Validation Study in Newborn Infants. Neonatology. 2019;116(3):260-268.