Comparison of two cardiac output monitors, qCO and LiDCO, during general anesthesia
Background: Optimization of cardiac output (CO) has been evidenced to reduce postoperative complications and to expedite the recovery. Likewise, CO and other dynamic cardiac parameters can describe the systemic blood flow and tissue oxygenation state and can be useful in different clinical fields. T...
| Autores: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2016 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) |
| Repositorio: | UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:upcommons.upc.edu:2117/99666 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2117/99666 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Patient monitoring Heart beat Cardiac Output Non-Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring qCO LiDCO Impedance Cardiography Prediction Probability Monitoratge de pacients Cor -- Batecs Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Enginyeria biomèdica |
| Sumario: | Background: Optimization of cardiac output (CO) has been evidenced to reduce postoperative complications and to expedite the recovery. Likewise, CO and other dynamic cardiac parameters can describe the systemic blood flow and tissue oxygenation state and can be useful in different clinical fields. This study aimed to validate the qCO monitor (Quantium Medical, Barcelona, Spain), a new device to estimate CO and other related parameters in a continuous, fully non-invasive way using advanced digital signal processing of impedance cardiography. Methods: The LiDCOrapidv2 (LiDCO Ltd, London, UK) was used to compare the performance of the qCO in 15 patients during major surgery under general anesthesia. Full surgeries were recorded and cardiac output obtained by both devices was compared by using correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. Results: The Bland-Altman analysis showed sufficient agreement with a mean bias of -0.03 ± 0.71 L/min. Conclusions: The findings showed that both systems offered comparable values and thus the non-invasive measurement of CO with qCO is a promising, feasible method. Further investigation will be required to validate this new device against calibrated devices and outcome studies would also be highly recommended. |
|---|