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 journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
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 -