Skip to content

A comparison between cardiac output monitoring using (invasive) pulmonary artery catheter and (noninvasive) thoracic electrical bioimpedance

Accuracy, precision and trending ability of electrical cardiometry cardiac output versus pulmonary artery thermodilution method: a prospective study

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ISRCTN
Registry ID
ISRCTN26732484
Enrollment
50
Registered
2017-06-01
Start date
2009-02-18
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2018-04-30

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Measurement of cardiac output with different devices in patients scheduled for cardiac surgery. Circulatory System Measurement of cardiac output with different devices in patients scheduled for cardiac surgery.

Interventions

After obtaining written informed consent of each patient, participants are randomly sampled from patients undergoing cardiac surgery. They receive the standard level of care during surgery. After indu

Sponsors

Maastricht Universitair Medisch Centrum
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Scheduled for cardiac surgery 2. No contra-indication for the use of the pulmonary artery thermodilution method 3. Aged 18 and older

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Contra indication for the use of the pulmonary artery thermodilution method 2. Under the age of 18

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
1. Accuracy and precision are measured using Bland Altman analysis by comparing results from the clinical gold standard pulmonary artery catheter to the results from the new device, the bioimpedance cardiac output monitor at 6 time points, after induction and prior to incision, prior to cannulation of the aorta, ten minutes after protamine administration, 30 minutes after arrival in the ICU, one hour after extubation, and one day post-operatively. 2. Polar plot methodology was used to objectify trending ability of the new technique ( AesculonTM).

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Our secondary aim was to assess whether the surgical incision, and therefore the interruption of the continuity of the skin of the thoracic cavity and opening of the cavity itself, could be an important factor in the reported discrepancy between the two instruments.

Countries

Netherlands

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 27, 2026