Accuracy, Precision, and Trending Ability of Electrical Cardiometry Cardiac Index versus Continuous Pulmonary Artery Thermodilution Method: A Prospective, Observational Study

Introduction Evaluation of accuracy, precision, and trending ability of cardiac index (CI) measurements using the Aesculon™ bioimpedance electrical cardiometry (Aesc) compared to the continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution catheter (PAC) technique before, during, and after cardiac surgery. Methods A prospective observational study with fifty patients with ASA 3-4. At six time points (T), measurements of CI simultaneously by continuous cardiac output pulmonary thermodilution and thoracic bioimpedance and standard hemodynamics were performed. Analysis was performed using Bland-Altman, four-quadrant plot, and polar plot methodology. Results CI obtained with pulmonary artery thermodilution and thoracic bioimpedance ranged from 1.00 to 6.75 L min-1 and 0.93 to 7.25 L min-1, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias between CIBIO and CIPAC of 0.52 liters min-1 m-2, with LOA of [-2.2; 1.1] liters min-1 m-2. Percentage error between the two techniques was above 30% at every time point. Polar plot methodology and 4-quadrant analysis showed poor trending ability. Skin incision had no effect on the results. Conclusion CI obtained by continuous PAC and CI obtained by Aesculon bioimpedance are not interchangeable in cardiac surgical patients. No effects of skin incision were found. International clinical trial registration number is ISRCTN26732484.