Skip to main content

Pressure recording analytical method versus PiCCO in hemodynamic unstable patients


Hemodynamic monitoring is important for diagnosis and therapy of critically ill patients. Thermodilution is now the gold standard method; however, it cannot be used routinely since it is very invasive. We investigated the agreement between the cardiac index (CI) obtained by mini-invasive monitor MostCare, based on the pressure recording analytical method (PRAM), and by PiCCO thermodilution in hemodynamic unstable patients.


We performed a prospective clinical study at our university hospital ICU. Twenty adult patients with hemodynamic instability were enrolled. All patients were sedated and mechanically ventilated with intermittent positive pressure ventilation. The MostCare and PiCCO systems were connected to each patient by a catheter inserted into the femoral artery. For each patient three measurements of CI were simultaneously carried out and the mean was considered for statistical analysis.


We enrolled 10 severe sepsis/septic shock, four interstitial pneumonia, three COPD, one subarachnoid hemorrhage, one abdominal compartment syndrome, and one polytrauma. The age range was 34 to 84 years (65 ± 13), the APACHE II score range was 13 to 38 (25 ± 6) and SAPS II score range was 22 to 81 (50 ± 16). The correlation coefficient between PRAM-CI and PiCCO-CI was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.89 to 0.99; P < 0.001) (Figure 1). The Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference between the two methods (bias) of 0.67 ± 0.38 l/minute/m2 with lower and upper 95% limits of confidence of -0.07 and 1.41 l/minute/m2, respectively (Figure 2). The percentage of error was 22%.

Figure 1
figure 1

Linear regression analysis between PRAM-CI and PiCCO-CI.

Figure 2
figure 2

Bland-Altman plot for comparison between PRAM-CI and thermodilution CI.


This study showed a sufficient agreement between the two techniques. MostCare could be a useful first-level monitoring system, particularly in the first phase of critically ill patients' care or when more invasive systems are not advisable.


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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Scolletta S, et al.: Br J Anaesth. 2005, 95: 159-165. 10.1093/bja/aei154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zangrillo A, et al.: Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2010, 24: 265-269. 10.1053/j.jvca.2009.09.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


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

Donati, A., Loggi, S., Carsetti, A. et al. Pressure recording analytical method versus PiCCO in hemodynamic unstable patients. Crit Care 15 (Suppl 1), P63 (2011).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Cardiac Index
  • Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
  • Compartment Syndrome
  • Interstitial Pneumonia
  • Score Range