A new noninvasive finger sensor (NICCI system) for cardiac output monitoring

Standard

A new noninvasive finger sensor (NICCI system) for cardiac output monitoring : A method comparison study in patients after cardiac surgery. / Flick, Moritz; Jobeir, Anas; Hoppe, Phillip; Kubik, Mathias; Rogge, Dorothea E; Schulte-Uentrop, Leonie; Kouz, Karim; Saugel, Bernd.

In: EUR J ANAESTH, Vol. 39, No. 8, 01.08.2022, p. 695-700.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journalSCORING: Journal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{2dc1ab3f194441dd8f692b0e74796ab8,
title = "A new noninvasive finger sensor (NICCI system) for cardiac output monitoring: A method comparison study in patients after cardiac surgery",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: The new noninvasive finger sensor system NICCI (Getinge; Gothenburg, Sweden) allows continuous cardiac output monitoring. We aimed to investigate its cardiac output measurement performance.OBJECTIVES: To investigate the NICCI system's cardiac output measurement performance.DESIGN: Prospective method comparison study.SETTING: University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.PATIENTS: Fifty-one patients after cardiac surgery.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We performed a method comparison study in 51 patients after cardiac surgery to compare NICCI cardiac output (CONICCI) and NICCI cardiac output calibrated to pulmonary artery thermodilution cardiac output measurement (CONICCI-CAL) with pulmonary artery thermodilution cardiac output (COPAT). As a secondary analysis we also compared CNAP cardiac output (COCNAP) and externally calibrated CNAP cardiac output (COCNAP-CAL) with COPAT.RESULTS: We analysed 299 cardiac output measurement pairs. The mean of the differences (95% limits of agreement) between CONICCI and COPAT was 0.6 (-1.8 to 3.1) l min-1 with a percentage error of 48%. The mean of the differences between CONICCI-CAL and COPAT was -0.4 (-1.9 to 1.1) l min-1 with a percentage error of 29%. The mean of the differences between COCNAP and COPAT was 1.0 (-1.8 to 3.8) l min-1 with a percentage error of 53%. The mean of the differences between COCNAP-CAL and COPAT was -0.2 (-2.0 to 1.6) l min-1 with a percentage error of 35%.CONCLUSION: The agreement between CONICCI and COPAT is not clinically acceptable.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00023189) after inclusion of the first patient on October 2, 2020.",
author = "Moritz Flick and Anas Jobeir and Phillip Hoppe and Mathias Kubik and Rogge, {Dorothea E} and Leonie Schulte-Uentrop and Karim Kouz and Bernd Saugel",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2022 European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.",
year = "2022",
month = aug,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/EJA.0000000000001705",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "695--700",
journal = "EUR J ANAESTH",
issn = "0265-0215",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A new noninvasive finger sensor (NICCI system) for cardiac output monitoring

T2 - A method comparison study in patients after cardiac surgery

AU - Flick, Moritz

AU - Jobeir, Anas

AU - Hoppe, Phillip

AU - Kubik, Mathias

AU - Rogge, Dorothea E

AU - Schulte-Uentrop, Leonie

AU - Kouz, Karim

AU - Saugel, Bernd

N1 - Copyright © 2022 European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

PY - 2022/8/1

Y1 - 2022/8/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: The new noninvasive finger sensor system NICCI (Getinge; Gothenburg, Sweden) allows continuous cardiac output monitoring. We aimed to investigate its cardiac output measurement performance.OBJECTIVES: To investigate the NICCI system's cardiac output measurement performance.DESIGN: Prospective method comparison study.SETTING: University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.PATIENTS: Fifty-one patients after cardiac surgery.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We performed a method comparison study in 51 patients after cardiac surgery to compare NICCI cardiac output (CONICCI) and NICCI cardiac output calibrated to pulmonary artery thermodilution cardiac output measurement (CONICCI-CAL) with pulmonary artery thermodilution cardiac output (COPAT). As a secondary analysis we also compared CNAP cardiac output (COCNAP) and externally calibrated CNAP cardiac output (COCNAP-CAL) with COPAT.RESULTS: We analysed 299 cardiac output measurement pairs. The mean of the differences (95% limits of agreement) between CONICCI and COPAT was 0.6 (-1.8 to 3.1) l min-1 with a percentage error of 48%. The mean of the differences between CONICCI-CAL and COPAT was -0.4 (-1.9 to 1.1) l min-1 with a percentage error of 29%. The mean of the differences between COCNAP and COPAT was 1.0 (-1.8 to 3.8) l min-1 with a percentage error of 53%. The mean of the differences between COCNAP-CAL and COPAT was -0.2 (-2.0 to 1.6) l min-1 with a percentage error of 35%.CONCLUSION: The agreement between CONICCI and COPAT is not clinically acceptable.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00023189) after inclusion of the first patient on October 2, 2020.

AB - BACKGROUND: The new noninvasive finger sensor system NICCI (Getinge; Gothenburg, Sweden) allows continuous cardiac output monitoring. We aimed to investigate its cardiac output measurement performance.OBJECTIVES: To investigate the NICCI system's cardiac output measurement performance.DESIGN: Prospective method comparison study.SETTING: University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.PATIENTS: Fifty-one patients after cardiac surgery.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We performed a method comparison study in 51 patients after cardiac surgery to compare NICCI cardiac output (CONICCI) and NICCI cardiac output calibrated to pulmonary artery thermodilution cardiac output measurement (CONICCI-CAL) with pulmonary artery thermodilution cardiac output (COPAT). As a secondary analysis we also compared CNAP cardiac output (COCNAP) and externally calibrated CNAP cardiac output (COCNAP-CAL) with COPAT.RESULTS: We analysed 299 cardiac output measurement pairs. The mean of the differences (95% limits of agreement) between CONICCI and COPAT was 0.6 (-1.8 to 3.1) l min-1 with a percentage error of 48%. The mean of the differences between CONICCI-CAL and COPAT was -0.4 (-1.9 to 1.1) l min-1 with a percentage error of 29%. The mean of the differences between COCNAP and COPAT was 1.0 (-1.8 to 3.8) l min-1 with a percentage error of 53%. The mean of the differences between COCNAP-CAL and COPAT was -0.2 (-2.0 to 1.6) l min-1 with a percentage error of 35%.CONCLUSION: The agreement between CONICCI and COPAT is not clinically acceptable.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00023189) after inclusion of the first patient on October 2, 2020.

U2 - 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001705

DO - 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001705

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 35792895

VL - 39

SP - 695

EP - 700

JO - EUR J ANAESTH

JF - EUR J ANAESTH

SN - 0265-0215

IS - 8

ER -