Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluation of the use of the fourth version FloTrac system in cardiac output measurement before and after cardiopulmonary bypass

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The FloTrac system is a system for cardiac output (CO) measurement that is less invasive than the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC). The purposes of this study were to (1) compare the level of agreement and trending abilities of CO values measured using the fourth version of the FloTrac system (CCO-FloTrac) and PAC-originated continuous thermodilution (CCO-PAC) and (2) analyze the inadequate CO-discriminating ability of the FloTrac system before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Fifty patients were included. After exclusion, 32 patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB were analyzed. All patients were monitored with a PAC and radial artery catheter connected to the FloTrac system. CO was assessed at 10 timing points during the surgery. In the Bland–Altman analysis, the percentage errors (bias, the limits of agreement) of the CCO-FloTrac were 61.82% (0.16, − 2.15 to 2.47 L min) and 51.80% (0.48, − 1.97 to 2.94 L min) before and after CPB, respectively, compared with CCO-PAC. The concordance rates in the four-quadrant plot were 64.10 and 62.16% and the angular concordance rates (angular mean bias, the radial limits of agreement) in the polar-plot analysis were 30.00% (17.62°, − 70.69° to 105.93°) and 38.63% (− 10.04°, − 96.73° to 76.30°) before and after CPB, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for CCO-FloTrac was 0.56, 0.52, 0.52, and 0.72 for all, ≥ ± 5, ≥ ± 10, and ≥ ± 15% CO changes (ΔCO) of CCO-PAC before CPB, respectively, and 0.59, 0.55, 0.49, and 0.46 for all, ≥ ± 5, ≥ ± 10, and ≥ ± 15% ΔCO of CCO-PAC after CPB, respectively. When CO < 4 L/min was considered inadequate, the Cohen κ coefficient was 0.355 and 0.373 before and after CPB, respectively. The accuracy, trending ability, and inadequate CO-discriminating ability of the fourth version of the FloTrac system in CO monitoring are not statistically acceptable in cardiac surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gan TJ, et al. Goal-directed intraoperative fluid administration reduces length of hospital stay after major surgery. Anesthesiology. 2002;97(4):820–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wakeling HG, et al. Intraoperative oesophageal Doppler guided fluid management shortens postoperative hospital stay after major bowel surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2005;95(5):634–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Noblett SE, et al. Randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of Doppler-optimized fluid management on outcome after elective colorectal resection. Br J Surg. 2006;93(9):1069–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Vincent JL, Fagnoul D. Do we need to monitor cardiac output during major surgery? Anesthesiology. 2012;117(6):1151–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Swan HJ, et al. Catheterization of the heart in man with use of a flow-directed balloon-tipped catheter. N Engl J Med. 1970;283(9):447–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Domino KB, et al. Injuries and liability related to central vascular catheters: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 2004;100(6):1411–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sandham JD, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of the use of pulmonary-artery catheters in high-risk surgical patients. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(1):5–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gore JM, et al. A community-wide assessment of the use of pulmonary artery catheters in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Chest. 1987;92(4):721–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Zion MM, et al. Use of pulmonary artery catheters in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Analysis of experience in 5,841 patients in the SPRINT Registry. SPRINT Study Group. Chest. 1990;98(6):1331–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Connors AF Jr, et al. The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT Investigators. JAMA. 1996;276(11):889–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Heyland DK, et al. Maximizing oxygen delivery in critically ill patients: a methodologic appraisal of the evidence. Crit Care Med. 1996;24(3):517–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ivanov RI, et al. Pulmonary artery catheterization: a narrative and systematic critique of randomized controlled trials and recommendations for the future. New Horiz. 1997;5(3):268–76.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Funk DJ, Moretti EW, Gan TJ. Minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring in the perioperative setting. Anesth Analg. 2009;108(3):887–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Slagt C, Malagon I, Groeneveld AB. Systematic review of uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to determine cardiac output and stroke volume variation. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112(4):626–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nakasuji M, et al. Disagreement between fourth generation FloTrac and LiDCOrapid measurements of cardiac output and stroke volume variation during laparoscopic colectomy. J Clin Anesth. 2016;35:150–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hattori K, et al. Accuracy and trending ability of the fourth-generation FloTrac/Vigileo system in patients with low cardiac index. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2016;31:99–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Asamoto M, et al. Reliability of cardiac output measurements using LiDCOrapid and FloTrac/Vigileo across broad ranges of cardiac output values. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;31:709–716

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee M, et al. Agreement in hemodynamic monitoring during orthotopic liver transplantation: a comparison of FloTrac/Vigileo at two monitoring sites with pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;31:343–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Montenij LJ, et al. Accuracy, precision, and trending ability of uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis of cardiac output in patients with impaired left ventricular function: a prospective, observational study. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2016;30(1):115–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tomasi R, et al. Comparison of an advanced minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring with a continuous invasive cardiac output monitoring during lung transplantation. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30(4):475–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bland JM, Altman DG. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17(4):571–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Critchley LA, Critchley JA. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput. 1999;15(2):85–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Critchley LA, Lee A, Ho AM. A critical review of the ability of continuous cardiac output monitors to measure trends in cardiac output. Anesth Analg. 2010;111(5):1180–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Critchley LA, Yang XX, Lee A. Assessment of trending ability of cardiac output monitors by polar plot methodology. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2011;25(3):536–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cook NR. Methods for evaluating novel biomarkers—a new paradigm. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64(13):1723–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Schloglhofer T, Gilly H, Schima H. Semi-invasive measurement of cardiac output based on pulse contour: a review and analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2014;61(5):452–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Singh S, Taylor MA. Con: the FloTrac device should not be used to follow cardiac output in cardiac surgical patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2010;24(4):709–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Metzelder S, et al. Performance of cardiac output measurement derived from arterial pressure waveform analysis in patients requiring high-dose vasopressor therapy. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106(6):776–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ganter MT, et al. Continuous cardiac output measurement by un-calibrated pulse wave analysis and pulmonary artery catheter in patients with septic shock. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30(1):13–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Marque S, et al. Cardiac output monitoring in septic shock: evaluation of the third-generation Flotrac-Vigileo. J Clin Monit Comput. 2013;27(3):273–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Slagt C, et al. Cardiac output measured by uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis by recently released software version 3.02 versus thermodilution in septic shock. J Clin Monit Comput. 2013;27(2):171–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Biancofiore G, et al. Evaluation of an uncalibrated arterial pulse contour cardiac output monitoring system in cirrhotic patients undergoing liver surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2009;102(1):47–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Monnet X, et al. Third-generation FloTrac/Vigileo does not reliably track changes in cardiac output induced by norepinephrine in critically ill patients. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108(4):615–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Maeda T, et al. Inaccuracy of the FloTrac/Vigileo system in patients with low cardiac index. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2014;28(6):1521–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Suehiro K, et al. Improved performance of the fourth-generation FloTrac/Vigileo system for tracking cardiac output changes. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2015;29(3):656–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Thiele RH, Durieux ME. Arterial waveform analysis for the anesthesiologist: past, present, and future concepts. Anesth Analg. 2011;113(4):766–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Pauca AL, Kon ND, O’Rourke MF. The second peak of the radial artery pressure wave represents aortic systolic pressure in hypertensive and elderly patients. Br J Anaesth. 2004;92(5):651–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kroeker EJ, Wood EH. Comparison of simultaneously recorded central and peripheral arterial pressure pulses during rest, exercise and tilted position in man. Circ Res. 1955;3(6):623–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Pauca AL, et al. Does radial artery pressure accurately reflect aortic pressure? Chest. 1992;102(4):1193–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Karamanoglu M, et al. An analysis of the relationship between central aortic and peripheral upper limb pressure waves in man. Eur Heart J. 1993;14(2):160–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Ji F, et al. Reliability of a new 4th generation FloTrac algorithm to track cardiac output changes in patients receiving phenylephrine. J Clin Monit Comput. 2015;29(4):467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Shih BF, et al. Cardiac output assessed by the fourth-generation arterial waveform analysis system is unreliable in liver transplant recipients. Transplant Proc. 2016;48(4):1170–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cho YJ, et al. Comparison of cardiac output measures by transpulmonary thermodilution, pulse contour analysis, and pulmonary artery thermodilution during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: a subgroup analysis of the cardiovascular anaesthesia registry at a single tertiary centre. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30(6):771–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Stern DH, et al. Can we trust the direct radial artery pressure immediately following cardiopulmonary bypass? Anesthesiology. 1985;62(5):557–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Baba T, et al. Radial artery diameter decreases with increased femoral to radial arterial pressure gradient during cardiopulmonary bypass. Anesth Analg. 1997;85(2):252–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Fuda G, et al. Risk factors involved in central-to-radial arterial pressure gradient during cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2016;122(3):624–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Hiraoka H, et al. Changes in drug plasma concentrations of an extensively bound and highly extracted drug, propofol, in response to altered plasma binding. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2004;75(4):324–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Takizawa E, et al. Changes in the effect of propofol in response to altered plasma protein binding during normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96(2):179–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. McMurray TJ, et al. Propofol sedation after open heart surgery. A clinical and pharmacokinetic study. Anaesthesia. 1990;45(4):322–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Maitre PO, et al. Pharmacokinetics of midazolam in patients recovering from cardiac surgery. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1989;37(2):161–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Barry AE, Chaney MA, London MJ. Anesthetic management during cardiopulmonary bypass: a systematic review. Anesth Analg. 2015;120(4):749–69.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Cameron D. Initiation of white cell activation during cardiopulmonary bypass: cytokines and receptors. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1996;27(Suppl 1):S1–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Morse DS, Adams D, Magnani B. Platelet and neutrophil activation during cardiac surgical procedures: impact of cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;65(3):691–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Bendjelid K, et al. Continuous cardiac output monitoring after cardiopulmonary bypass: a comparison with bolus thermodilution measurement. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(6):919–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Zollner C, et al. Continuous cardiac output measurements do not agree with conventional bolus thermodilution cardiac output determination. Can J Anaesth. 2001;48(11):1143–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Della Rocca G, et al. Continuous and intermittent cardiac output measurement: pulmonary artery catheter versus aortic transpulmonary technique. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88(3):350–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Della Rocca G, et al. Cardiac output monitoring: aortic transpulmonary thermodilution and pulse contour analysis agree with standard thermodilution methods in patients undergoing lung transplantation. Can J Anaesth. 2003;50(7):707–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the Biostatistical Center for Clinical Research (Grant CLRPG3D0043), Research Services Center for Health Information (Grant CIRPD1D0031) from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, and Mr. Shih-Hao Liu for statistical consultation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chun-Yu Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Chang Gung Medical Foundation Institutional Review Board in Taiwan (registration number: 104-7177B) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, SY., Chou, AH., Tsai, YF. et al. Evaluation of the use of the fourth version FloTrac system in cardiac output measurement before and after cardiopulmonary bypass. J Clin Monit Comput 32, 807–815 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-017-0071-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-017-0071-6

Keywords

Navigation