112 research outputs found

    Bench-to-bedside review: The importance of the precision of the reference technique in method comparison studies - with specific reference to the measurement of cardiac output

    Get PDF
    Bland-Altman analysis is used for assessing agreement between two measurements of the same clinical variable. In the field of cardiac output monitoring, its results, in terms of bias and limits of agreement, are often difficult to interpret, leading clinicians to use a cutoff of 30% in the percentage error in order to decide whether a new technique may be considered a good alternative. This percentage error of ± 30% arises from the assumption that the commonly used reference technique, intermittent thermodilution, has a precision of ± 20% or less. The combination of two precisions of ± 20% equates to a total error of ± 28.3%, which is commonly rounded up to ± 30%. Thus, finding a percentage error of less than ± 30% should equate to the new tested technique having an error similar to the reference, which therefore should be acceptable. In a worked example in this paper, we discuss the limitations of this approach, in particular in regard to the situation in which the reference technique may be either more or less precise than would normally be expected. This can lead to inappropriate conclusions being drawn from data acquired in validation studies of new monitoring technologies. We conclude that it is not acceptable to present comparison studies quoting percentage error as an acceptability criteria without reporting the precision of the reference technique

    Clinical review: Goal-directed therapy - what is the evidence in surgical patients? The effect on different risk groups

    Get PDF
    Patients with limited cardiac reserve are less likely to survive and develop more complications following major surgery. By augmenting oxygen delivery index (DO2I) with a combination of intravenous fl uids and inotropes (goaldirected therapy (GDT)), postoperative mortality and morbidity of high-risk patients may be reduced. However, although most studies suggest that GDT may improve outcome in high-risk surgical patients, it is still not widely practiced. We set out to test the hypothesis that GDT results in greatest benefi t in terms of mortality and morbidity in patients with the highest risk of mortality and have undertaken a systematic review of the current literature to see if this is correct. We performed a systematic search of Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reviews of GDT in surgical patients. To minimize heterogeneity we excluded studies involving cardiac, trauma, and paediatric surgery. Extremely high risk, high risk and intermediate risks of mortality were defi ned as >20%, 5 to 20% and <5% mortality rates in the control arms of the trials, respectively. Metaanalyses were performed and Forest plots drawn using RevMan software. Data are presented as odd ratios (OR; 95% confi dence intervals (CI), and P-values). A total of 32 RCTs including 2,808 patients were reviewed. All studies reported mortality. Five studies (including 300 patients) were excluded from assessment of complication rates as the number of patients with complications was not reported. The mortality benefi t of GDT was confi ned to the extremely high-risk group (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41; P < 0.0001). Complication rates were reduced in all subgroups (OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60; P < 0.00001). The morbidity benefi t was greatest amongst patients in the extremely high-risk subgroup (OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.51; P < 0.0001), followed by the intermediate risk subgroup (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.67; P = 0.0002), and the high-risk subgroup (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.89; P = 0.01). Despite heterogeneity in trial quality and design, we found GDT to be beneficial in all high-risk patients undergoing major surgery. The mortality benefit of GDT was confined to the subgroup of patients at extremely high risk of death. The reduction of complication rates was seen across all subgroups of GDT patients

    Impact of arterial load on the agreement between pulse pressure analysis and esophageal Doppler.

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION: The reliability of pulse pressure analysis to estimate cardiac output is known to be affected by arterial load changes. However, the contribution of each aspect of arterial load could be substantially different. In this study, we evaluated the agreement of eight non-commercial algorithms of pulse pressure analysis for estimating cardiac output (PPCO) with esophageal Doppler cardiac output (EDCO) during acute changes of arterial load. In addition, we aimed to determine the optimal arterial load parameter that could detect a clinically significant difference between PPCO and the EDCO. METHODS: We included mechanically ventilated patients monitored with a prototype esophageal Doppler (CardioQ-Combi™, Deltex Medical, Chichester, UK) and an indwelling arterial catheter who received a fluid challenge or in whom the vasoactive medication was introduced or modified. Initial calibration of PPCO was made with the baseline value of EDCO. We evaluated several aspects of arterial load: total systemic vascular resistance (TSVR=mean arterial pressure [MAP]/EDCO*80), net arterial compliance (C=EDCO-derived stroke volume/pulse pressure), and effective arterial elastance (Ea=0.9*systolic blood pressure/EDCO-derived stroke volume). We compared CO values with Bland-Altman analysis, four-quadrant plot and a modified polar plot (with least significant change analysis). RESULTS: A total of 16,964-paired measurements in 53 patients were performed (median 271; interquartile range: 180-415). Agreement of all PPCO algorithms with EDCO was significantly affected by changes in arterial load, although the impact was more pronounced during changes in vasopressor therapy. When looking at different parameters of arterial load, the predictive abilities of Ea and C were superior to TSVR and MAP changes to detect a PPCO-EDCO discrepancy≥10% in all PPCO algorithms. An absolute Ea change>8.9±1.7% was associated with a PPCO-EDCO discrepancy≥10% in most algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in arterial load profoundly affected the agreement of PPCO and EDCO, although the contribution of each aspect of arterial load to the PPCO-EDCO discrepancies was significantly different. Changes in Ea and C mainly determined PPCO-EDCO discrepancy

    Validation of a continuous infusion of low dose Iohexol to measure glomerular filtration rate: randomised clinical trial.

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION: There is currently no accurate method of measuring glomerular filtration rate (GFR) during acute kidney injury (AKI). Knowledge of how much GFR varies in stable subjects is necessary before changes in GFR can be attributed to AKI. We have designed a method of continuous measurement of GFR intended as a research tool to time effects of AKI. The aims of this crossover trial were to establish accuracy and precision of a continuous infusion of low dose Iohexol (CILDI) and variation in GFR in stable volunteers over a range of estimated GFR (23-138 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). METHODS: We randomised 17 volunteers to GFR measurement by plasma clearance (PC) and renal clearance (RC) of either a single bolus of Iohexol (SBI; routine method), or of a continuous infusion of low dose Iohexol (CILDI; experimental method) at 0.5 mL/h for 12 h. GFR was measured by the alternative method after a washout period (4-28 days). Iohexol concentration was measured by high performance liquid chromatography/electrospray tandem mass spectrometry and time to steady state concentration (Css) determined. RESULTS: Mean PC was 76.7 ± 28.5 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (SBI), and 78.9 ± 28.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (CILDI), p = 0.82. No crossover effects occurred (p = 0.85). Correlation (r) between the methods was 0.98 (p 10.3% depict evolving AKI. If this were applicable to AKI, this is less than the 50% change in serum creatinine currently required to define AKI. CILDI is now ready for testing in patients with AKI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with the European Union Clinical Trials Register (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/), registration number: 2010-019933-89
    • …
    corecore