Skip to main content

Accuracy of the PiCCO2-derived pulse contour cardiac index (CIpc): development and validation of a calibration index in two independent collectives

Introduction

After calibration by thermodilution (TD), the PiCCO device is able to assess CO using pulse contour (PC) analysis. Despite an overall good correlation of CItd and CIpc in several studies, the manufacturer suggests recalibration by TD after 8 hours. A calibration index derived from PC parameters indicating a certain probability of a relevant bias and triggering the next calibration would be of great practical use. Therefore, it was the aim of our study to prospectively evaluate predictors of the bias CItd-CIpc exactly 1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours and 8 hours after the last calibration.

Methods

In 28 consecutive patients 56 datasets each including six TDs were recorded. In each triplicate TD measurement, CIpc was recorded immediately before recalibration by TD and compared to CItd. Results derived from this evaluation collective were validated in an independent second collective of 48 patients with 67 datasets. SPSS 19 software was used.

Results

The sample was 19 males, nine females, age 60.2 ± 11.8 years; APACHE II score 23.3 ± 5.4. The 280 pairs of CIpc and CItd showed a significant correlation (P < 0.001; r = 0.907). There was no difference between CIpc versus CItd (4.15 ± 1.46 vs. 4.09 ± 1.41 l/minute*sqm; P = 0.265). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean bias of -0.061 ± 0.603 l/minute*sqm (lower and upper levels of agreement -1.24 and 1.12l/minute*sqm; percentage error of 28.7%). In univariate analyses, the bias CItd2-CIpc was not correlated to the interval to the last calibration (P = 0.705; r = -0.023), but it was correlated to CIpc immediately before recalibration (r = -0.275; P < 0.001) and to changes from CIpc versus the previous CItd1 (Delta-CIpc-CItd1; r = -0.504; P < 0.001). These findings were confirmed in the validation collective (P < 0.001). Multiple regression analysis demonstrated independent association of the bias to Delta-CIpc-CItd1. This association was best described by bias CItd2-CIpc = -0.014 - 0.372x + 0.145x2 - 1.260x3 with x = Delta-CIpc-CItd1. This formula as a potential calibration index provided ROC AUCs of 0.882 and 0. 751 (P < 0.001) to predict a bias CItd2-CIpc >20% or <-20% in the evaluation collective. This formula was confirmed with ROC AUCs of 0.809 and 0.714 (P < 0,001) to predict a bias CItd2-CIpc >20% or <-20% in the independent validation collective.

Conclusion

The difference CIpc-CItd1 is an independent predictor of the bias CItd2-CIpc. A calibration index was developed and validated. It could be a useful decision support to initiate the next TD.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W Huber.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Huber, W., Koenig, J., Saugel, B. et al. Accuracy of the PiCCO2-derived pulse contour cardiac index (CIpc): development and validation of a calibration index in two independent collectives. Crit Care 16, P222 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc10829

Download citation

Keywords

  • Univariate Analysis
  • Independent Predictor
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Decision Support
  • Multiple Regression Analysis