A comparison of ClearSight noninvasive cardiac output and pulmonary artery bolus thermodilution cardiac output in cardiac surgery patients

Yuefu Wang; Weiqin Huang; Jiange Han; Yu Tian; Chunrong Wang; Lihuan Li

doi:10.1186/s13741-022-00248-1

A comparison of ClearSight noninvasive cardiac output and pulmonary artery bolus thermodilution cardiac output in cardiac surgery patients

Perioper Med (Lond). 2022 Jun 9;11(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s13741-022-00248-1.

Authors

Yuefu Wang^#^{1

2}, Weiqin Huang^#³, Jiange Han^#⁴, Yu Tian², Chunrong Wang², Lihuan Li⁵

Affiliations

¹ Department of Anesthesiology, Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
² Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
³ Department of Anesthesiology, Asian Heart Hospital, Wuhan, Wuhan, China.
⁴ Department of Anesthesiology, Chest Hospital, Tianjin, Tianjin, China.
⁵ Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 527996085@qq.com.

^# Contributed equally.

Abstract

Background: The ClearSight system measures blood pressure non-invasively and determines cardiac output by analyzing the continuous pressure waveform. We performed a multi-center clinical study in China to test the equivalence of cardiac output measured with the ClearSight system (CSCO) and cardiac output measured with the pulmonary artery catheter bolus thermodilution (TDCO) method.

Methods: We included adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery in three Chinese hospitals and measured TDCO and CSCO simultaneously after induction of anesthesia. Hemodynamic stability was required during measurement of TDCO and CSCO. At least four TDCO determinations were performed. The corresponding CSCO was determined as the average over a 30-s period following the injection of each bolus. A data pair for the comparison included the average of three or four accepted TDCO values and the average of the matching CSCO values. Main outcomes included Bland-Altman analysis of bias and standard deviation (SD) and the percentage error (PE).

Results: One hundred twenty-five subjects were enrolled, and 122 TDCO and CSCO data pairs were available for analysis. Ninety-five (75.4%) data pairs were collected in hemodynamically stable conditions, mean (SD) CSCO was 4.21 (0.78) l/min, and mean TDCO was 3.90 (0.67) l/min. Bias was 0.32 (0.51) l/min, and PE was 25.2%. Analyzing all 122 data pairs resulted in a mean CSCO of 4.19 (0.82) l/min and a mean TDCO of 3.83 (0.71) l/min. Resulting bias was 0.36 (0.53) l/min, and PE was 26.4%.

Conclusions: CSCO and TDCO agreed with a low systematic bias. Besides, mean PE was well below the pre-defined 30%. Hemodynamic stability only had a small impact on the analysis. We conclude that CSCO is equivalent to TDCO in cardiac surgery patients. The trial was retrospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03807622 ; January 17, 2019.

Keywords: Bolus thermodilution; Cardiac output; ClearSight; Finger cuff; Noninvasive; Pulmonary artery catheter; Pulse wave analysis; Volume clamp.

Associated data

ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT03807622