A comparison between four techniques to measure cardiac output.

Abstract

Cardiac output is an important variable when monitoring hemodynamic status. In particular, changes in cardiac output represent the goal of several circulatory management therapies. Unfortunately, cardiac output is very difficult to estimate, either in experimental or clinical settings. The goal of this work is to compare four techniques to measure cardiac output: pressure-volume catheter, aortic flow probe, thermodilution, and the PiCCO monitor. These four techniques were simultaneously used during experiments of fluid and endotoxin administration on 7 pigs. Findings show that, first, each individual technique is precise, with a relative coefficient of repeatability lower than 7 %. Second, 1 cardiac output estimate provided by any technique relates poorly to the estimates from the other 3, even if there is only small bias between the techniques. Third, changes in cardiac output detected by one technique are only detected by the others in 62 to 100 % of cases. This study confirms the difficulty of obtaining a reliable clinical cardiac output measurement. Therefore, several measurements using different techniques should be performed, if possible, and all such should be treated with caution.