Cardiothoracic & vascular anesthesia
Reliability of bioreactance and arterial waveform analyses in monitoring stroke volume variation during cardiac surgery
Authors' conclusion
Despite acceptable mean biases, the variability between devices was considerable, and trending analyses indicated only limited concordance. The studied SVV monitors, therefore, cannot be considered interchangeable in the context of cardiac surgery.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing cardiac surgery (OPCAB or with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB)), single university hospital2,055 + 367 paired stroke volume variation (SVV) measurements
- Participants
- 18 vs 20
- Exposure
- SVV by bioreactance vs arterial waveform analysis
- OPCABn = 18
- CPBn = 20
- Outcome
- Agreement (Bland-Altman) and trending ability (four-quadrant plots, error grids, concordance) of SVV measurements between devices
- Follow-up
- Intraoperatively and postoperatively
Methodological detailssingle-centre
- Single-centre
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Agreement of SVV between devices
Mean bias
2.3 %pt
95% CI 2.1–2.6
Starling SV vs FloTrac · limits of agreement −14.3 to 20.5%pt (wide); OPCAB, 2055 paired measurements
Bias
1.5 %pt
95% CI 0.9–2.2
Starling SV vs LiDCOrapid · limits of agreement −38.3 to 38.4%pt (very wide); CPB, 367 paired measurements
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Original publication
Reliability of bioreactance and arterial waveform analyses in monitoring stroke volume variation during cardiac surgery. J Clin Monit Comput. Published 24 November 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →