A prospective comparison of a noninvasive cardiac output monitor versus esophageal doppler monitor for goal-directed fluid therapy in colorectal surgery patients

dc.contributor.author

Waldron, Nathan H

dc.contributor.author

Miller, Timothy E

dc.contributor.author

Thacker, Julie K

dc.contributor.author

Manchester, Amy K

dc.contributor.author

White, William D

dc.contributor.author

Nardiello, John

dc.contributor.author

Elgasim, Magdi A

dc.contributor.author

Moon, Richard E

dc.contributor.author

Gan, Tong J

dc.date.accessioned

2016-08-01T16:44:11Z

dc.date.issued

2014-01-01

dc.description.abstract

Copyright © 2014 International Anesthesia Research Society.BACKGROUND: Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) is associated with improved outcomes after surgery. The esophageal Doppler monitor (EDM) is widely used, but has several limitations. The NICOM, a completely noninvasive cardiac output monitor (Cheetah Medical), may be appropriate for guiding GDFT. No prospective studies have compared the NICOM and the EDM. We hypothesized that the NICOM is not significantly different from the EDM for monitoring during GDFT. METHODS: One hundred adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery participated in this study. Patients in phase I (n = 50) had intraoperative GDFT guided by the EDM while the NICOM was connected, and patients in phase II (n = 50) had intraoperative GDFT guided by the NICOM while the EDM was connected. Each patient's stroke volume was optimized using 250- mL colloid boluses. Agreement between the monitors was assessed, and patient outcomes (postoperative pain, nausea, and return of bowel function), complications (renal, pulmonary, infectious, and wound complications), and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared. RESULTS: Using a 10% increase in stroke volume after fluid challenge, agreement between monitors was 60% at 5 minutes, 61% at 10 minutes, and 66% at 15 minutes, with no significant systematic disagreement (McNemar P > 0.05) at any time point. The EDM had significantly more missing data than the NICOM. No clinically significant differences were found in total LOS or other outcomes. The mean LOS was 6.56 ± 4.32 days in phase I and 6.07 ± 2.85 days in phase II, and 95% confidence limits for the difference were -0.96 to +1.95 days (P = 0.5016). CONCLUSIONS: The NICOM performs similarly to the EDM in guiding GDFT, with no clinically significant differences in outcomes, and offers increased ease of use as well as fewer missing data points. The NICOM may be a viable alternative monitor to guide GDFT.

dc.identifier.eissn

1526-7598

dc.identifier.issn

0003-2999

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/12553

dc.publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

dc.relation.ispartof

Anesthesia and Analgesia

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1213/ANE.0000000000000182

dc.title

A prospective comparison of a noninvasive cardiac output monitor versus esophageal doppler monitor for goal-directed fluid therapy in colorectal surgery patients

dc.type

Journal article

duke.contributor.orcid

Miller, Timothy E|0000-0001-8567-6680

duke.contributor.orcid

Moon, Richard E|0000-0003-4432-0332

pubs.begin-page

966

pubs.end-page

975

pubs.issue

5

pubs.organisational-group

Anesthesiology

pubs.organisational-group

Anesthesiology, General, Vascular, High Risk Transplant & Critical Care

pubs.organisational-group

Clinical Science Departments

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

Duke Cancer Institute

pubs.organisational-group

Faculty

pubs.organisational-group

Institutes and Centers

pubs.organisational-group

Medicine

pubs.organisational-group

Medicine, Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine

pubs.organisational-group

School of Medicine

pubs.publication-status

Published

pubs.volume

118

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
NICOM study 2014.pdf
Size:
649.82 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format