Differences in Direct Fick and Thermodilution Measurements of Cardiac Output: Impact on Pulmonary Hypertension Classification

ABSTRACT Direct Fick (DF) and bolus thermodilution (TD) are endorsed by pulmonary hypertension (PH) guidelines to measure cardiac output. In contemporary practice, agreement between methods is unknown, as are the diagnostic consequences of disagreement. We sought to evaluate the frequency and degree...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Garry W. Hamilton, Luke R. Fletcher, William Harley, Robert Azzopardi, R. Kimberly Chan, Jordan Fulcher, Lachlan F. Miles, Omar Farouque, Mark C. G. Horrigan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2025-01-01
Series:Pulmonary Circulation
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/pul2.70053
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850276765726932992
author Garry W. Hamilton
Luke R. Fletcher
William Harley
Robert Azzopardi
R. Kimberly Chan
Jordan Fulcher
Lachlan F. Miles
Omar Farouque
Mark C. G. Horrigan
author_facet Garry W. Hamilton
Luke R. Fletcher
William Harley
Robert Azzopardi
R. Kimberly Chan
Jordan Fulcher
Lachlan F. Miles
Omar Farouque
Mark C. G. Horrigan
author_sort Garry W. Hamilton
collection DOAJ
description ABSTRACT Direct Fick (DF) and bolus thermodilution (TD) are endorsed by pulmonary hypertension (PH) guidelines to measure cardiac output. In contemporary practice, agreement between methods is unknown, as are the diagnostic consequences of disagreement. We sought to evaluate the frequency and degree of disagreements between cardiac output measurement techniques and assess their impact on the hemodynamic assessment of PH. This was a single‐center study that included 182 patients who had cardiac output concurrently measured by DF and TD. Oxygen consumption was measured by indirect calorimetry. Agreement between DF and bolus TD cardiac output was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. The median DF and TD cardiac outputs were 5.42 L/min (interquartile range [IQR] 3.90–7.41) and 4.10 L/min (IQR 3.47–5.10), respectively. Significant disagreement was observed with DF yielding higher cardiac output results than TD. Mean error was proportional to cardiac output (−3.75% at 3 L/min to +44.5% at 7 L/min), and limits of agreement were wide. Disagreement was increased by 19.2% in the presence of least moderate tricuspid regurgitation and by 16.0% in patients with atrial fibrillation. Among 152 patients with PH, hemodynamic classification discordance occurred in 18 (11.8%) patients. Disagreement between DF and TD was observed, which resulted in a discrepant hemodynamic classification in approximately 12% of patients. These techniques should, therefore, not be used interchangeably for serial surveillance, and without a clinical gold standard, a rationale exists for utilizing both methods concurrently in certain clinical situations.
format Article
id doaj-art-7d1027770c9644888a02edab19a88604
institution OA Journals
issn 2045-8940
language English
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Pulmonary Circulation
spelling doaj-art-7d1027770c9644888a02edab19a886042025-08-20T01:50:07ZengWileyPulmonary Circulation2045-89402025-01-01151n/an/a10.1002/pul2.70053Differences in Direct Fick and Thermodilution Measurements of Cardiac Output: Impact on Pulmonary Hypertension ClassificationGarry W. Hamilton0Luke R. Fletcher1William Harley2Robert Azzopardi3R. Kimberly Chan4Jordan Fulcher5Lachlan F. Miles6Omar Farouque7Mark C. G. Horrigan8Department of Cardiology Austin Health Heidelberg AustraliaDepartment of Anaesthesia Austin Health Heidelberg AustraliaDepartment of Cardiology Austin Health Heidelberg AustraliaDepartment of Cardiology Austin Health Heidelberg AustraliaDepartment of Cardiology Austin Health Heidelberg AustraliaDepartment of Cardiology Austin Health Heidelberg AustraliaDepartment of Anaesthesia Austin Health Heidelberg AustraliaDepartment of Cardiology Austin Health Heidelberg AustraliaDepartment of Cardiology Austin Health Heidelberg AustraliaABSTRACT Direct Fick (DF) and bolus thermodilution (TD) are endorsed by pulmonary hypertension (PH) guidelines to measure cardiac output. In contemporary practice, agreement between methods is unknown, as are the diagnostic consequences of disagreement. We sought to evaluate the frequency and degree of disagreements between cardiac output measurement techniques and assess their impact on the hemodynamic assessment of PH. This was a single‐center study that included 182 patients who had cardiac output concurrently measured by DF and TD. Oxygen consumption was measured by indirect calorimetry. Agreement between DF and bolus TD cardiac output was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. The median DF and TD cardiac outputs were 5.42 L/min (interquartile range [IQR] 3.90–7.41) and 4.10 L/min (IQR 3.47–5.10), respectively. Significant disagreement was observed with DF yielding higher cardiac output results than TD. Mean error was proportional to cardiac output (−3.75% at 3 L/min to +44.5% at 7 L/min), and limits of agreement were wide. Disagreement was increased by 19.2% in the presence of least moderate tricuspid regurgitation and by 16.0% in patients with atrial fibrillation. Among 152 patients with PH, hemodynamic classification discordance occurred in 18 (11.8%) patients. Disagreement between DF and TD was observed, which resulted in a discrepant hemodynamic classification in approximately 12% of patients. These techniques should, therefore, not be used interchangeably for serial surveillance, and without a clinical gold standard, a rationale exists for utilizing both methods concurrently in certain clinical situations.https://doi.org/10.1002/pul2.70053agreementcardiac outputcorrelationdirect Fickhemodynamicspulmonary hypertension
spellingShingle Garry W. Hamilton
Luke R. Fletcher
William Harley
Robert Azzopardi
R. Kimberly Chan
Jordan Fulcher
Lachlan F. Miles
Omar Farouque
Mark C. G. Horrigan
Differences in Direct Fick and Thermodilution Measurements of Cardiac Output: Impact on Pulmonary Hypertension Classification
Pulmonary Circulation
agreement
cardiac output
correlation
direct Fick
hemodynamics
pulmonary hypertension
title Differences in Direct Fick and Thermodilution Measurements of Cardiac Output: Impact on Pulmonary Hypertension Classification
title_full Differences in Direct Fick and Thermodilution Measurements of Cardiac Output: Impact on Pulmonary Hypertension Classification
title_fullStr Differences in Direct Fick and Thermodilution Measurements of Cardiac Output: Impact on Pulmonary Hypertension Classification
title_full_unstemmed Differences in Direct Fick and Thermodilution Measurements of Cardiac Output: Impact on Pulmonary Hypertension Classification
title_short Differences in Direct Fick and Thermodilution Measurements of Cardiac Output: Impact on Pulmonary Hypertension Classification
title_sort differences in direct fick and thermodilution measurements of cardiac output impact on pulmonary hypertension classification
topic agreement
cardiac output
correlation
direct Fick
hemodynamics
pulmonary hypertension
url https://doi.org/10.1002/pul2.70053
work_keys_str_mv AT garrywhamilton differencesindirectfickandthermodilutionmeasurementsofcardiacoutputimpactonpulmonaryhypertensionclassification
AT lukerfletcher differencesindirectfickandthermodilutionmeasurementsofcardiacoutputimpactonpulmonaryhypertensionclassification
AT williamharley differencesindirectfickandthermodilutionmeasurementsofcardiacoutputimpactonpulmonaryhypertensionclassification
AT robertazzopardi differencesindirectfickandthermodilutionmeasurementsofcardiacoutputimpactonpulmonaryhypertensionclassification
AT rkimberlychan differencesindirectfickandthermodilutionmeasurementsofcardiacoutputimpactonpulmonaryhypertensionclassification
AT jordanfulcher differencesindirectfickandthermodilutionmeasurementsofcardiacoutputimpactonpulmonaryhypertensionclassification
AT lachlanfmiles differencesindirectfickandthermodilutionmeasurementsofcardiacoutputimpactonpulmonaryhypertensionclassification
AT omarfarouque differencesindirectfickandthermodilutionmeasurementsofcardiacoutputimpactonpulmonaryhypertensionclassification
AT markcghorrigan differencesindirectfickandthermodilutionmeasurementsofcardiacoutputimpactonpulmonaryhypertensionclassification