{Reference Type}: Observational Study
{Title}: Comparison of invasive and non-invasive measurements of cardiac index and systemic vascular resistance in living-donor liver transplantation: a prospective, observational study.
{Author}: Cho HY;Lee HJ;Hwang IE;Lee HC;Kim WH;Yang SM;
{Journal}: BMC Anesthesiol
{Volume}: 23
{Issue}: 1
{Year}: 2023 11 4
{Factor}: 2.376
{DOI}: 10.1186/s12871-023-02302-x
{Abstract}: Based on the controversy surrounding pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) in surgical patients, we investigated the interchangeability of cardiac index (CI) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) measurements between ClearSight™ and PAC during living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).<BR>This prospective study included consecutively selected LDLT patients. ClearSight™-based CI and SVR measurements were compared with those from PAC at seven LDLT-stage time points. ClearSight™-based systolic (SAP), mean (MAP), and diastolic (DAP) arterial pressures were also compared with those from femoral arterial catheterization (FAC). For the comparison and analysis of ClearSight™ and the reference method, Bland-Altman analysis was used to analyze accuracy while polar and four-quadrant plots were used to analyze the trending ability.<BR>From 27 patients, 189 pairs of ClearSight™ and reference values were analyzed. The CI and SVR performance errors (PEs) exhibited poor accuracy between the two methods (51.52 and 51.73%, respectively) in the Bland-Altman analysis. CI and SVR also exhibited unacceptable trending abilities in both the polar and four-quadrant plot analyses. SAP, MAP, and DAP PEs between the two methods displayed favorable accuracy (24.28, 21.18, and 26.26%, respectively). SAP and MAP exhibited acceptable trending ability in the four-quadrant plot between the two methods, but not in the polar plot analyses.<BR>During LDLT, CI and SVR demonstrated poor interchangeability, while SAP and MAP exhibited acceptable interchangeability between ClearSight™ and FAC.