Choose ONE of the following minimally invasive continuous cardiac output (CCO) monitoring devices
used in critically ill patients as an alternative to the Pulmonary Artery Catheter (PAC).
For either PiCCO OR FloTrac OR LiDCOplus:
a. Outline the measurement principles used to generate CCO. (4 marks)
b. Explain how the device is calibrated. (2 marks)
c. Discuss the limitations of its use in clinical practice. (4 marks)
Syllabus topic/section:
2.1.4 Cardiovascular Intensive Care: Haemodynamic monitoring: L1
Discussion:
Candidates scored poorly in this question due to a lack of understanding of the topic and the principles of continuous cardiac output (CCO) monitoring. Many candidates didn’t answer the question that was asked or interpreted the question incorrectly and provided information about all 3 devices rather than just 1 device which was explicitly stated in the question with underlining and bolded. Candidates are advised to read the instructions carefully for maximum time efficiency. The question required candidates to understand that these devices use analysis of the pulse pressure waveform and a proprietary algorithm to generate a CCO and some (PiCCO/LiDCO) combine this with thermodilution. Candidates that scored well in this question understood the basic principles of pulse pressure waveform analysis as outlined above, internal vs external calibration, and that limitations relate to the various elements of a device. These limitations include the actual line (art or CVC), transducer system, thermodilution techniques and patient specific factors (pulse waveform analysis is not validated in certain patient populations like ECMO or post pneumonectomy). Candidates that considered the individual components of a device were able to use this to structure their answer for all 3 parts of the question. The marking rubric is included to aid the candidate’s future study.
|
Below standard |
At standard |
Above standard |
|
|
PiCCO a) Principles |
No or incorrect understanding that analysis of the arterial pressure waveform is combined with transpulmonary thermodilution. No or minimal awareness of a proprietary algorithm. |
Basic understanding that analysis of the arterial pressure waveform is combined with transpulmonary thermodilution. Awareness of a proprietary algorithm to generate CCO from the patient specific thermodilution generated CO. |
Detailed understanding of how analysis of the arterial pressure waveform is combined with transpulmonary thermodilution. Awareness of the proprietary algorithm and some recognition it is affected by haemodynamic changes (HR and aortic compliance). |
|
(4 marks) |
0-1.5 mark |
2-3 marks |
3.5-4 marks |
|
b) Calibration |
No or incorrect understanding of how PiCCO is calibrated. |
Understands calibrated via transpulmonary thermodilution to generate a patient specific CO. |
Detailed understanding including externally calibrated via transpulmonary thermodilution and thermistor tipped catheter. Needs recalibrating periodically or when haemodynamic changes occur. |
|
(2 marks) |
0-0.5 mark |
1-1.5 marks |
2 marks |
|
c) Limitations |
Incorrect or no recognition of the limitations in clinical practice. Recognises that there are factors affect accuracy of either thermodilution or arterial waveform. |
Recognises that factors affecting accuracy of both thermodilution and arterial waveform are limitations to its use. Minimal detail for each of the above and/or lacking awareness of specific populations it can’t be used in. |
Understands -Factors affecting accuracy of thermodilution (technique/pathological conditions) -Factors affecting accuracy of arterial waveform (vasomotor tone/SVR and technical factors affecting arterial line transducer) -PWA can’t be used in certain populations (VV and VA ECMO, pneumonectomy, IABP etc) -Aware that PiCCO not correlated in Off Pump CABG and needs recalibrating as Above |
|
(4 marks) |
0-1.5 mark |
2-3 marks |
3.5-4 marks |
|
FloTrac a) Principles |
No or incorrect understanding that uses analysis of the pulse pressure characteristics. No or incorrect understanding of proprietary algorithm. |
Basic understanding that uses analysis of pulse pressure characteristics and a proprietary algorithm to produce CO. |
Good understanding that uses analysis of pressure waveform characteristics on a beat-to-beat basis and a proprietary algorithm that incorporates changes in arterial compliance and resistance. |
|
(4 marks) |
0-1.5 mark |
2-3 marks |
3.5-4 marks |
|
b) Calibration (2 marks) |
No or incorrect understanding of how FloTrac is calibrated 0-0.5 mark |
Understands calibrated prior to use with a population data set as reference. 1-1.5 marks |
Detailed understanding including internally calibrated using a population and haemodynamic data set. 2 marks |
|
c) Limitations (4 marks) |
Incorrect or no recognition of the limitations in clinical practice. Recognises that either technical or patient factors affect accuracy of arterial waveform and are limitations to its use. 0-1.5 mark |
Recognises that technical and patient factors affect accuracy of arterial waveform and are limitations to its use. Minimal detail for each of the above and/or lacking awareness of specific populations it can’t be used in. 2-3 marks |
Understands -Factors affecting accuracy of arterial waveform can be both physiological (vasomotor tone/SVR) and technical (affecting arterial line transducer) -PWA can’t be used in certain populations (VV and VA ECMO, pneumonectomy, IABP etc) -Aware that FloTrac not correlated in vasodilated states (sepsis and liver failure) or in patients not represented in the population data sets. 3.5-4 marks |
|
LiDCO a) Principles (4 marks) |
No or incorrect understanding that analysis of the arterial pressure waveform is combined with transpulmonary thermodilution. No or incorrect understanding of proprietary algorithm. 0-1.5 mark |
Basic understanding that analysis of the arterial pressure waveform is combined with transpulmonary lithium thermodilution. Awareness of a proprietary algorithm to generate CCO from the patient specific lithium thermodilution generated CO. 2-3 marks |
Detailed understanding of how analysis of the arterial pressure waveform is combined with transpulmonary thermodilution to generate CCO. Awareness of the proprietary algorithm and some recognition it is affected by arterial compliance. 3.5-4 marks |
|
b) Calibration (2 marks) |
No or incorrect understanding of how LiDCO is calibrated 0-0.5 mark |
Understands calibrated via transpulmonary lithium thermodilution to generate a patient specific CO. 1-1.5 marks |
Detailed understanding including externally calibrated via lithium transpulmonary thermodilution and lithium sensor tipped catheter. Needs recalibrating periodically or when haemodynamic changes occur. 2 marks |
|
c) Limitations (4 marks) |
Incorrect or no recognition of the limitations in clinical practice. Recognises that factors affect accuracy of either thermodilution or arterial waveform are limitations to its use. 0-1.5 mark |
Recognises that factors affecting accuracy of both thermodilution and arterial waveform are limitations to its use. Minimal detail for each of the above and/or lacking awareness of specific populations it can’t be used in. 2-3 marks |
Understands -Factors affecting accuracy of thermodilution (technique/pathological conditions) -Factors affecting accuracy of arterial waveform (vasomotor tone/SVR and technical factors affecting arterial line transducer) -PWA can’t be used in certain populations (VV and VA ECMO, pneumonectomy, IABP etc) -Aware that LiDCO overestimates CO in patients receiving lithium therapy and with certain muscle relaxants and needs recalibrating as above. 3.5-4 marks |
This exhaustive rubric leaves little room for frivolous misinterpretation. A model answer is probably not necessary for something like this, but here goes anyway (the main challenge being to get this into under 200 words for each device).
PiCCO:
LiDCO:
FloTrac:
As one might imagine, the act of putting together something succinct has left this author with the frustrated need to deep dive into the plie fascinating information that was left on the cutting room floor. Large swaths of the PiCCO, LiDCO and FloTrac chapters were renovated in the course of this process. Of the random directions into which this travelled the most interesting was probably the long painful explanation of how the pulse contour is magically transformed into the cardiac output.
Litton*, E., and M. Morgan. "The PiCCO monitor: a review." Anaesthesia and intensive care 40.3 (2012): 393-408.
Oren-Grinberg, Achikam. "The piCCO monitor." International anesthesiology clinics 48.1 (2010): 57-85.
Huber, W., et al. "Recalibration of pulse contour cardiac output using the PiCCO-2 device: when to perform the next thermodilution?." Critical Care 13 (2009): 1-2.
Hadian, Mehrnaz, et al. "Cross-comparison of cardiac output trending accuracy of LiDCO, PiCCO, FloTrac and pulmonary artery catheters." Critical care 14 (2010): 1-10.
From Bersten and Soni’s” Oh's Intensive Care Manual”, 6th Edition, as well as http://www.pulsion.com/ who are sadly the best source for this sort of information.
Sundar, Sugantha, and Peter Panzica. "LiDCO systems." International anesthesiology clinics 48.1 (2010): 87-100.
Hadian, Mehrnaz, et al. "Cross-comparison of cardiac output trending accuracy of LiDCO, PiCCO, FloTrac and pulmonary artery catheters." Critical care 14 (2010): 1-10.
Argueta, Erwin, et al. "FloTrac® Monitoring System: What Are Its Uses in Critically III Medical Patients?." The American Journal of the Medical Sciences 349.4 (2015): 352-356.
Compton, F. D., et al. "Performance of a minimally invasive uncalibrated cardiac output monitoring system (FloTrac™/Vigileo™) in haemodynamically unstable patients." British journal of anaesthesia 100.4 (2008): 451-456.
Manecke, Gerard R. "Edwards FloTrac™ sensor and Vigileo™ monitor: easy, accurate, reliable cardiac output assessment using the arterial pulse wave." Expert Review of Medical Devices 2.5 (2005): 523-527.
Krejci, Vladimir, et al. "Comparison of calibrated and uncalibrated arterial pressure–based cardiac output monitors during orthotopic liver transplantation." Liver transplantation 16.6 (2010): 773-782.