Skip to main content
  • Poster presentation
  • Published:

Bioreactance versus PICCOTD/PC in critically ill septic shock patients

Introduction

We designed this study to compare the performance in cardiac output (CO) monitoring capabilities of two devices in refractory septic shock patients (RSS Pts): non-invasive transthoracic bioreactance (NICOM) and pulse contour analysis (PICCO PC) coupled to transpulmonary thermodilution (PICCOTD).

Methods

We included RSS Pts in vasopressor/inotrope need monitored with both devices. Triplicate measurements of CO by PICCOTD were used to measure CO at baseline and to calibrate PulseCO. The CO values recorded simultaneously minute-by-minute by the two systems were compared at baseline (nonperturbated system), in response to a passive leg-raising maneuver (PLR = leg elevation to 45° for 2 minutes starting from a supine position) and PEEP test (10 and 15 cmH2O for 10 minutes each) (perturbated system). We used PICCOTD/PC as the reference technology evaluating the accuracy and estimating the precision of both devices.

Results

Continuous CO recording with both devices was performed on 12 consecutive RSS Pts (Nep + Epi = 0.66 ± 0.15 μg/kg/minute, all ventilated with TV <8 ml/kg). At baseline (nonperturbated system), correlation analysis of NICOM vs PiCCOTD CO showed r2 of 0.78 (P < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis evidenced a mean bias of 0.08 l/min (LOA -1.31 to 1.49). The mean CO was 6.01 ± 1.48 l/min. In a perturbated system the bias of NICOM vs PICCO PC was respectively-0.05 l/min (LOA -1.52 to 1.42) and 0.3 l/min (LOA -2 to 2.6) during PLR and PEEP test. The percentage error was <30% in 92% of patients at baseline (nonperturbated system), in 92% of patients during PLR and in 74% during PEEP test. In a nonperturbated system the CO precision (calculated as 2 SD/mean over 10 consecutive measurements) was 6.5 ± 6% and 6.7 ± 9% for NICOM and PiCCOTD, respectively (NS). Precision for NICOM and PICCOPC was respectively 6.8 ± 13% and 4.7 ± 10% during PLR and 7 ± 15% and 7.6 ± 15% during PEEP test.

Conclusions

Although limited to a small number of patients, NICOM and PICCO PC, calibrated by TD, seem to have comparable accuracy and precision in CO monitoring in RSS Pts even in a perturbated system.

References

  1. Squara P: Intensive Care Med. 2007, 33: 1191-1194. 10.1007/s00134-007-0640-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Squara P: Crit Care. 2009, 13: R125-10.1186/cc7981.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Monti, G., Pizzilli, G., Cecconi, M. et al. Bioreactance versus PICCOTD/PC in critically ill septic shock patients. Crit Care 14 (Suppl 1), P99 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc8331

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/cc8331

Keywords