Skip to main content

Cardiac output estimation: Vigileo and Mostcare versus echocardiography


In the present study we analyzed the reliability for cardiac output (CO) measurement of Vigileo (Edwards Lifescience, Irvine, CA, USA) and MostCare (pressure recording analytical method; Vygon-Vytech, Padova, Italy) in comparison with transthoracic Doppler echocardiography (as the reference method) in patients undergoing vascular surgery.


Both Vigileo and MostCare were connected to the FloTrac transducer (Edwards Lifescience) for CO calculation. The data from Vigileo and MostCare were registered (COVIG and COMC respectively) and compared with those calculated with the echocardiographic standard formulation (stroke volume = cross-sectional area×velocity time integral; COECHO = SV×heart rate). In every patient CO was measured twice: at baseline (T1) and after volume loading (500 ml lactate Ringer solution) (T2). Agreements between COVIG, COMC, and COECHO were evaluated by means of simple linear regression (r 2) and Bland-Altman analysis.


Twenty patients were enrolled in the study. Values of r 2, bias and limit of agreement at T1 and T2 are summarized in Table 1. CO values ranged from 3.9 and 8.6 l/minute (echo), from 3.4 to 9.9 (Vigileo) and from 4 to 8.3 (MostCare); the Pearson's and Bland-Altman methods showed poor agreement between COECHO and COVIG, demonstrating a tendency to overestimation (see Figure 1). The percentage of error (PE) was 51.7% at T1 and 49.3% at T2. On the contrary, MostCare measures showed good agreement with echocardiography (see Table 1) with a PE of 22.4% at T1 and of 17% at T2

Table 1 .
Figure 1

Bland-Altman analysis (T1).


Vigileo did not prove to be a substitute to the reference system; pre-loaded data, necessary for vascular impedance estimation, may be one of the main limitations that made Vigileo measurements less accurate than the MostCare ones. On the contrary, MostCare, an uncalibrated totally independent system, was shown to properly estimate the vascular impedance in these hemodynamically stable patients. Further comparisons in unstable conditions are needed to confirm our observations.


  1. 1.

    Romano SM, et al.: Crit Care. 2002, 30: 1834-1841. 10.1097/00003246-200208000-00027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Geisen M, et al.: Curr Opin Crit Care. 2012, 18: 377-384. 10.1097/MCC.0b013e328355894f

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to S Romagnoli.

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 The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( 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

Romagnoli, S., Quattrone, D. & De Gaudio, A. Cardiac output estimation: Vigileo and Mostcare versus echocardiography. Crit Care 17, P197 (2013).

Download citation


  • Cardiac Output
  • Stroke Volume
  • Simple Linear Regression
  • Doppler Echocardiography
  • Ringer Solution