↓ Skip to main content

The estimation of cardiac output by the Nexfin device is of poor reliability for tracking the effects of a fluid challenge

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The estimation of cardiac output by the Nexfin device is of poor reliability for tracking the effects of a fluid challenge
Published in
Critical Care, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11846
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xavier Monnet, Fabien Picard, Elsa Lidzborski, Malcie Mesnil, Jacques Duranteau, Christian Richard, Jean-Louis Teboul

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The Nexfin device estimates arterial pressure by the volume clamp method through a finger pneumatic cuff. It also allows to estimate cardiac index (CInoninv) by pulse contour analysis of the non-invasive arterial pressure curve. We evaluated the ability of the device to track changes in cardiac index induced by a fluid challenge. METHODS: We included 45 patients for whom a volume expansion (500 mL of saline infused over 30 min) was planned. The volume expansion-induced changes in cardiac index measured by transpulmonary thermodilution (CIinv, PiCCO device) and in CInoninv were recorded. RESULTS: In seven patients, the Nexfin could not record the arterial curve due to finger hypoperfusion. Considering both the values obtained before and after volume expansion (n = 76 pairs of measurements), the bias (lower and upper limits of agreement) between CIinv and CInoninv was 0.2 (-1.8 to 2.2) L/min/m2. The mean change in CInoninv was 10 ± 11%. The percentage error of CInoninv was 57%. The correlation between the changes in CIinv and CInoninv observed during volume expansion was significant (P = 0.0002) with an r2 = 0.31. CONCLUSIONS: The estimation of CI by the Nexfin device in critically ill patients is not reliable, neither for estimating absolute values of CI nor for tracking its changes during volume expansion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
France 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 81 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 12 14%
Other 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Other 20 23%
Unknown 9 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 62%
Engineering 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 13 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2013.
All research outputs
#14,782,490
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,873
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,414
of 202,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#67
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 202,202 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.