Accuracy of Cardiac Output by Nine Different Pulse Contour Algorithms in Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Comparison with Transpulmonary Thermodilution

Table 5

Polar analysis showing concordance rates with exclusion zone of 15% before (T1) and after (T2) cardiopulmonary bypass for nine different pulse contour algorithms compared with transpulmonary thermodilution.

	Before CPB (T1)									After CPB (T2)
	X1	X2	X3	X4	X5	X6	X7	X8	X9	X1	X2	X3	X4	X5	X6	X7	X8	X9
Mean (L/min)	−0.22	−0.29	−0.31	−0.31	−0.32	−0.32	−0.26	−0.27	−0.27	0.74	1.03	0.97	1.12	0.33	0.16	0.17	0.15	0.17
Concordance rates (%), 10% limits of agreement	59	66	76	71	71	75	56	67	60	61	42	68	57	42	61	68	58	63
Concordance rates (%), 20% limits of agreement	88	87	88	94	93	93	80	86	80	88	83	84	79	84	83	78	76	89

CPB, cardiopulmonary bypass; , cardiac output by nine different pulse contour algorithms; , changes in cardiac output.
Data pairs within the 10% limits of agreement (10% LOAS: ±0.38 L/min before and ±0.57 L/min after CPB) indicated good trending. Data pairs within the 20% limits of agreement (20% LOAs: ±0.76 L/min before and ±1.14 L/min after CPB) indicated moderate trending ability. Concordance rates >92% were considered sufficient.