Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T12:54:08.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NON-INVASIVE METHODS FOR MATERNAL CARDIAC OUTPUT MONITORING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2015

ANNELEEN S STAELENS ,
PHILIPPE B BERTRAND ,
SHARONA VONCK ,
MANU L N G MALBRAIN  and
WILFRIED GYSELAERS
ANNELEEN S STAELENS*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ziekenhuis Oost Limburg, Genk, Belgium Department of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium
PHILIPPE B BERTRAND
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost Limburg, Genk, Belgium
SHARONA VONCK
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ziekenhuis Oost Limburg, Genk, Belgium Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost Limburg, Genk, Belgium
MANU L N G MALBRAIN
Affiliation:
Department of Intensive Care, Ziekenhuis Netwerk Antwerpen, ZNA Stuivenberg, Antwerp, Belgium
WILFRIED GYSELAERS
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ziekenhuis Oost Limburg, Genk, Belgium Department of Physiology, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium
*
Anneleen S Staelens, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Schiepse Bos 6, 3600 Genk, Belgium. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a non-obstetric population, the optimization of cardiac output (CO) had been shown to improve survival and to reduce postoperative complications, organ failure and the length of stay1 . CO monitoring might be very useful in the obstetric population as well, as physiologic changes of CO during pregnancy are mandatory for a normal outcome. An uncomplicated pregnancy is associated with a 50% increase in maternal CO, which is mediated by plasma volume expansion and a decrease in peripheral resistance2 . An aberrant change of this maternal CO might influence pregnancy outcome: pregnancies complicated with foetal growth restriction and/or preeclampsia are characterized by increased total vascular resistance and reduced systolic function (i.e. lower CO and stroke volume (SV))3–5 .

Type
Review Article
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 25 , Issue 3-4 , November 2014 , pp. 197 - 213
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Marik, PE, Baram, M. Noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Clin 2007; 23 (3): 383–400.Google Scholar
2. Robson, SC, Hunter, S, Boys, RJ, Dunlop, W. Serial study of factors influencing changes in cardiac output during human pregnancy. Am J Physiol 1989; 256 (4 Pt 2): H1060–5.Google ScholarPubMed
3. Bamfo, JE, Kametas, NA, Turan, O, Khaw, A, Nicolaides, KH. Maternal cardiac function in fetal growth restriction. BJOG 2006; 113 (7): 784–91.Google Scholar
4. Bosio, PM, McKenna, PJ, Conroy, R, O’Herlihy, C. Maternal central hemodynamics in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94 (6): 978–84.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Jia, RZ, Liu, XM, Wang, X, Wu, HQ. Relationship between cardiovascular function and fetal growth restriction in women with pre-eclampsia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010; 110 (1): 61–3.Google Scholar
6. Fick, A. Ueber die messung des blutquantums in den herzventrikeln. Sitz Physik Med Ges 1870; 2: 16.Google Scholar
7. Palmers, PJ, Vidts, W, Ameloot, K, Cordemans, C, Van Regenmortel, N, De Laet, I et al. Assessment of three minimally invasive continuous cardiac output measurement methods in critically ill patients and a review of the literature. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2012; 44 (4): 188–99.Google Scholar
8. Cook, LB, Morgan, M. Pulmonary artery catheterisation. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1994; 23 (4): 519–30.Google Scholar
9. Critchley, LA, Critchley, JA. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput 1999; 15 (2): 85–91.Google Scholar
10. Peyton, PJ, Chong, SW. Minimally invasive measurement of cardiac output during surgery and critical care: a meta-analysis of accuracy and precision. Anesthesiology 2010; 113 (5): 1220–35.Google Scholar
11. Hofkens, PJ, Verrijcken, A, Merveille, K, Neirynck, S, Van Regenmortel, N, De Laet, I et al. Common pitfalls and tips and tricks to get the most out of your transpulmonary thermodilution device: results of a survey and state-of-the-art review. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2015; 47 (2): 89–116.Google Scholar
12. Malbrain, MLNG, De Potter, TJR, Deeren, D. Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring. In: Vincent, JL (ed.) Yearbook of intensive care and emergency medicine. Berlin: Springer; 2005; 603–31.Google Scholar
13. Johnston, IG, Fraser, JF, Sabapathy, S, Kruger, PS. The pulmonary artery catheter in Australasia: a survey investigating intensive care physicians’ knowledge and perception of future trends in use. Anaesth Intensive Care 2008; 36 (1): 84–9.Google Scholar
14. Reuter, DA, Huang, C, Edrich, T, Shernan, SK, Eltzschig, HK. Cardiac output monitoring using indicator-dilution techniques: basics, limits, and perspectives. Anesth Analg 2010; 110 (3): 799–811.Google Scholar
15. Vincent, JL. The pulmonary artery catheter. J Clin Monit Comput 2012; 26 (5): 341–5.Google Scholar
16. Koo, KK, Sun, JC, Zhou, Q, Guyatt, G, Cook, DJ, Walter, SD et al. Pulmonary artery catheters: evolving rates and reasons for use. Crit Care Med 2011; 39 (7): 1613–8.Google Scholar
17. Vincent, JL, Dhainaut, JF, Perret, C and Suter, P. Is the pulmonary artery catheter misused? A European view. Crit Care Med 1998; 26 (7): 1283–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Harvey, S, Harrison, DA, Singer, M, Ashcroft, J, Jones, CM, Elbourne, D et al. Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366 (9484): 472–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Richard, C, Warszawski, J, Anguel, N, Deye, N, Combes, A, Barnoud, D et al. Early use of the pulmonary artery catheter and outcomes in patients with shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003; 290 (20): 2713–20.Google Scholar
20. Magder, S. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Crit Care Clin 2015; 31 (1): 67–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Gilbert, WM, Towner, DR, Field, NT, Anthony, J. The safety and utility of pulmonary artery catheterization in severe preeclampsia and eclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182 (6): 1397–403.Google Scholar
22. Lang, RM, Bierig, M, Devereux, RB, Flachskampf, FA, Foster, E, Pellikka, PA et al. Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American society of echocardiography's guidelines and standards committee and the chamber quantification writing group, developed in conjunction with the European association of echocardiography, a branch of the European society of cardiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2005; 18 (12): 1440–63.Google Scholar
23. Jenkins, C, Bricknell, K, Hanekom, L, Marwick, TH. Reproducibility and accuracy of echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular parameters using real-time three-dimensional echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44 (4): 878–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Quinones, MA, Otto, CM, Stoddard, M, Waggoner, A, Zoghbi, WA, Doppler Quantification Task Force of the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the American Society of Echocardiography. Recommendations for quantification of Doppler echocardiography: a report from the Doppler quantification task force of the nomenclature and standards committee of the American society of echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2002; 15 (2): 167–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Lewis, JF, Kuo, LC, Nelson, JG, Limacher, MC, Quinones, MA. Pulsed Doppler echocardiographic determination of stroke volume and cardiac output: clinical validation of two new methods using the apical window. Circulation 1984; 70 (3): 425–31.Google Scholar
26. Dubin, J, Wallerson, DC, Cody, RJ, Devereux, RB. Comparative accuracy of Doppler echocardiographic methods for clinical stroke volume determination. Am Heart J 1990; 120 (1): 116–23.Google Scholar
27. Sun, JP, Pu, M, Fouad, FM, Christian, R, Stewart, WJ, Thomas, JD. Automated cardiac output measurement by spatiotemporal integration of color Doppler data. In vitro and clinical validation. Circulation 1997; 95 (4): 932–9.Google Scholar
28. Lee, W, Rokey, R, Cotton, DB. Noninvasive maternal stroke volume and cardiac output determinations by pulsed Doppler echocardiography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158 (3 Pt 1): 505–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Dennis, A, Arhanghelschi, I, Simmons, S, Royse, C. Prospective observational study of serial cardiac output by transthoracic echocardiography in healthy pregnant women undergoing elective caesarean delivery. Int J Obstet Anesth 2010; 19 (2): 142–8.Google Scholar
30. Dennis, AT. Transthoracic echocardiography in obstetric anaesthesia and obstetric critical illness. Int J Obstet Anesth 2011; 20 (2): 160–8.Google Scholar
31. Gaspar, T, Adawi, S, Sachner, R, Asmer, I, Ganaeem, M, Rubinshtein, R et al. Three-dimensional imaging of the left ventricular outflow tract: impact on aortic valve area estimation by the continuity equation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2012; 25 (7): 749–57.Google Scholar
32. Penny, JA, Anthony, J, Shennan, AH, De Swiet, M, Singer, M. A comparison of hemodynamic data derived by pulmonary artery flotation catheter and the esophageal Doppler monitor in preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183 (3): 658–61.Google Scholar
33. Ghosh, S, Arthur, B, Klein, AA. NICE guidance on CardioQ(TM) oesophageal Doppler monitoring. Anaesthesia 2011; 66 (12): 1081–3.Google Scholar
34. Dark, PM, Singer, M. The validity of trans-esophageal Doppler ultrasonography as a measure of cardiac output in critically ill adults. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30 (11): 2060–6.Google Scholar
35. Kim, K, Kwok, I, Chang, H, Han, T. Comparison of cardiac outputs of major burn patients undergoing extensive early escharectomy: esophageal Doppler monitor versus thermodilution pulmonary artery catheter. J Trauma 2004; 57 (5): 1013–7.Google Scholar
36. Sharma, J, Bhise, M, Singh, A, Mehta, Y, Trehan, N. Hemodynamic measurements after cardiac surgery: transesophageal Doppler versus pulmonary artery catheter. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2005; 19 (6): 746–50.Google Scholar
37. Perrino, AC Jr, Fleming, J, LaMantia, KR. Transesophageal Doppler cardiac output monitoring: performance during aortic reconstructive surgery. Anesth Analg 1991; 73 (6): 705–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Dey, I and Sprivulis, P. Emergency physicians can reliably assess emergency department patient cardiac output using the USCOM continuous wave Doppler cardiac output monitor. Emerg Med Australas 2005; 17 (3): 193–9.Google Scholar
39. Meyer, S, Todd, D, Wright, I, Gortner, L, Reynolds, G. Review article: non-invasive assessment of cardiac output with portable continuous-wave Doppler ultrasound. Emerg Med Australas 2008; 20 (3): 201–8.Google Scholar
40. McNamara, H, Barclay, P, Sharma, V. Accuracy and precision of the ultrasound cardiac output monitor (USCOM 1A) in pregnancy: comparison with three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography. Br J Anaesth 2014; 113 (4): 669–76.Google Scholar
41. Kager, CC, Dekker, GA, Stam, MC. Measurement of cardiac output in normal pregnancy by a non-invasive two-dimensional independent Doppler device. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 49 (2): 142–4.Google Scholar
42. Bliacheriene, F, Carmona, MJ, Barretti Cde, F, Haddad, CM, Mouchalwat, ES, Bortolotto, MR et al. Use of a minimally invasive uncalibrated cardiac output monitor in patients undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: report of four cases. Rev Bras Anestesiol 2011; 61 (5): 610–8, 334–8.Google Scholar
43. Archer, TL, Heitmeyer, JD. Perioperative hemodynamics obtained by pulse contour analysis facilitated the management of a patient with chronic hypertension, renal insufficiency, and superimposed preeclampsia during cesarean delivery. J Clin Anesth 2010; 22 (4): 274–9.Google Scholar
44. Kubicek, WG, Karnegis, JN, Patterson, RP, Witsoe, DA, Mattson, RH. Development and evaluation of an impedance cardiac output system. Aerosp Med 1966; 37 (12): 1208–12.Google Scholar
45. Bernstein, DP, A new stroke volume equation for thoracic electrical bioimpedance: theory and rationale. Crit Care Med 1986; 14 (10): 904–9.Google Scholar
46. Sramek, BB, Cardiac output by electrical impedance. Med Electron 1982; 13 (2): 93–7.Google Scholar
47. Cotter, G, Moshkovitz, Y, Kaluski, E, Cohen, AJ, Miller, H, Goor, D et al. Accurate, noninvasive continuous monitoring of cardiac output by whole-body electrical bioimpedance. Chest 2004; 125 (4): 1431–40.Google Scholar
48. Staelens, A, Tomsin, K, Grieten, L, Oben, J, Mesens, T, Spaanderman, M et al. Non-invasive assessment of gestational hemodynamics: benefits and limitations of impedance cardiography versus other techniques. Expert Rev Med Devices 2013; 10 (6): 765–79.Google Scholar
49. Burlingame, J, Ohana, P, Aaronoff, M and Seto, T. Noninvasive cardiac monitoring in pregnancy: impedance cardiography versus echocardiography. J Perinatol 2013 Sep; 33 (9): 675–80.Google Scholar
50. Moertl, MG, Schlembach, D, Papousek, I, Hinghofer-Szalkay, H, Weiss, EM, Lang, U et al. Hemodynamic evaluation in pregnancy: limitations of impedance cardiography. Physiol Meas 2012; 33 (6): 1015–26.Google Scholar
51. Mabie, WC, DiSessa, TG, Crocker, LG, Sibai, BM, Arheart, KL. A longitudinal study of cardiac output in normal human pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170 (3): 849–56.Google Scholar
52. Keren, H, Burkhoff, D, Squara, P. Evaluation of a noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring system based on thoracic bioreactance. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2007; 293 (1): H583–9.Google Scholar
53. Squara, P, Denjean, D, Estagnasie, P, Brusset, A, Dib, JC, Dubois, C. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM): a clinical validation. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33 (7): 1191–4.Google Scholar
54. Ohashi, Y, Ibrahim, H, Furtado, L, Kingdom, J, Carvalho, JC. Non-invasive hemodynamic assessment of non-pregnant, healthy pregnant and preeclamptic women using bioreactance. Rev Bras Anestesiol 2010; 60 (6): 603–13, 335–40.Google Scholar
55. Labovitz, AJ, Buckingham, TA, Habermehl, K, Nelson, J, Kennedy, HL, Williams, GA. The effects of sampling site on the two-dimensional echo-Doppler determination of cardiac output. Am Heart J 1985; 109 (2): 327–32.Google Scholar
56. Dittmann, H, Voelker, W, Karsch, KR, Seipel, L. Influence of sampling site and flow area on cardiac output measurements by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987; 10 (4): 818–23.Google Scholar
57. Tardif, JC, Cao, QL, Pandian, NG, Esakof, DD and Pollard, H. Determination of cardiac output using acoustic quantification in critically ill patients. Am J Cardiol 1994; 74 (8): 810–3.Google Scholar
58. Valtier, B, Cholley, BP, Belot, JP, de la Coussaye, JE, Mateo, J, Payen, DM. Noninvasive monitoring of cardiac output in critically ill patients using transesophageal Doppler. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998; 158 (1): 77–83.Google Scholar
59. Arora, D, Chand, R, Mehta, Y, Trehan, N. Cardiac output estimation after off-pump coronary artery bypass: a comparison of two different techniques. Ann Card Anaesth 2007; 10 (2): 132–6.Google Scholar
60. Chan, JS, Segara, D, Nair, P. Measurement of cardiac output with a non-invasive continuous wave Doppler device versus the pulmonary artery catheter: a comparative study. Crit Care Resusc 2006; 8 (4): 309–14.Google Scholar
61. Tan, HL, Pinder, M, Parsons, R, Roberts, B, van Heerden, PV. Clinical evaluation of USCOM ultrasonic cardiac output monitor in cardiac surgical patients in intensive care unit. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94 (3): 287–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62. Chand, R, Mehta, Y, Trehan, N. Cardiac output estimation with a new Doppler device after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2006; 20 (3): 315–9.Google Scholar
63. Thom, O, Taylor, DM, Wolfe, RE, Cade, J, Myles, P, Krum, H et al. Comparison of a supra-sternal cardiac output monitor (USCOM) with the pulmonary artery catheter. Br J Anaesth 2009; 103 (6): 800–4.Google Scholar
64. Wong, LS, Yong, BH, Young, KK, Lau, LS, Cheng, KL, Man, JS et al. Comparison of the USCOM ultrasound cardiac output monitor with pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2008; 14 (7): 1038–43.Google Scholar
65. Knirsch, W, Kretschmar, O, Tomaske, M, Stutz, K, Nagdyman, N, Balmer, C et al. Cardiac output measurement in children: comparison of the Ultrasound Cardiac Output Monitor with thermodilution cardiac output measurement. Intensive Care Med 2008; 34 (6): 1060–4.Google Scholar
66. Marque, S, Gros, A, Chimot, L, Gacouin, A, Lavoue, S, Camus, C et al. Cardiac output monitoring in septic shock: evaluation of the third-generation Flotrac-Vigileo. J Clin Monit Comput 2013; 27 (3): 273–9.Google Scholar
67. Spohr, F, Hettrich, P, Bauer, H, Haas, U, Martin, E and Bottiger, BW. Comparison of two methods for enhanced continuous circulatory monitoring in patients with septic shock. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33 (10): 1805–10.Google Scholar
68. Schramm, S, Albrecht, E, Frascarolo, P, Chassot, PG, Spahn, DR. Validity of an arterial pressure waveform analysis device: does the puncture site play a role in the agreement with intermittent pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution measurements? J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2010; 24 (2): 250–6.Google Scholar
69. Ameloot, K, Van De Vijver, K, Broch, O, Van Regenmortel, N, De Laet, I, Schoonheydt, K et al. Nexfin noninvasive continuous hemodynamic monitoring: validation against continuous pulse contour and intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution derived cardiac output in critically ill patients. ScientificWorldJournal 2013; 2013: 519080.Google Scholar
70. Bubenek-Turconi, SI, Craciun, M, Miclea, I and Perel, A. Noninvasive continuous cardiac output by the Nexfin before and after preload-modifying maneuvers: a comparison with intermittent thermodilution cardiac output. Anesth Analg 2013; 117 (2): 366–72.Google Scholar
71. Maass, SW, Roekaerts, PM, Lance, MD. Cardiac output measurement by bioimpedance and noninvasive pulse contour analysis compared with the continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution technique. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2014; 28 (3): 534–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
72. Simon, R, Desebbe, O, Henaine, R, Bastien, O, Lehot, JJ, Cannesson, M. [Comparison of ICG thoracic bioimpedance cardiac output monitoring system in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with pulmonary artery cardiac output measurements]. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 2009; 28 (6): 537–41.Google Scholar
73. Drazner, MH, Thompson, B, Rosenberg, PB, Kaiser, PA, Boehrer, JD, Baldwin, BJ et al. Comparison of impedance cardiography with invasive hemodynamic measurements in patients with heart failure secondary to ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol 2002; 89 (8): 993–5.Google Scholar
74. Cheung, H, Dong, Q, Dong, R, Yu, B. Correlation of cardiac output measured by non-invasive continuous cardiac output monitoring (NICOM) and thermodilution in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. J Anesth 2014.Google Scholar