Agreement of continuous non-invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring (CNAP) and pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution method in estimating the hemodynamic parameters of post CABG patients

Abstract Background The use of hemodynamic parameters in monitoring patients after coronary artery bypass surgery is an essential element of clinical practice. It helps intensivist and physicians to properly manage patients after surgery where hemodynamic parameters are usually dynamic and complicated. Pulmonary artery guided thermodilution (PACT) has been the gold standard in assessing the adequacy of cardiac output, however, its invasive nature is also associated with more complex procedures and the risk of complications, including infections. With the emergence of new non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring devices such as the CNAP (continuous non-invasive arterial pressure), alternative methods for hemodynamic monitoring is now possible. Compared to invasive methods, it is easier to use with an error-free application, safer, less risk of infection and more cost effective. Purpose To determine the agreement of Continuous non-invasive arterial pressure (CNAP) and pulmonary artery guided thermodilution in monitoring the hemodynamic parameters of patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Methods This is a cross-sectional study conducted at the cardiovascular surgical intensive care unit and included 63 patients with Coronary artery disease who underwent elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Cardiac output, Cardiac Index, Stroke volume and Systemic vascular resistance were simultaneously obtained using both the CNAP and PACT. Three consecutive sets of measurements were recorded for each patient with a 3 hour interval; during arrival at the ICU, 3 hours post op, and 6 hours post op. Results The mean difference between PACT-CO and CNAP-CO was -0.81 L/min (SD -1.18 to -0.44) with a 95% limits of agreement of -3.74 to 2.11 L/min on the 0 hour, -0.81L/min (SD -1.22 to -0.41) with a 95% limits of agreement of -1.98 to 1.18 L/min on the 3rd hour, and -0.77L/min (SD -1.08 to -0.46) with a 95% limits of agreement of -3.22 to 1.68 L/min on the 6th hour post op. The results showed a significant difference between the PACT and CNAP. However, a positive correlation was noted between PACT-CO and CNAP-CO, the correlation coefficient on the 0, 3rd and 6th hour were 0.5384, 0.5158, and 0.6265 respectively. Conclusion CNAP derived hemodynamic parameters had a high mean difference compared to the PACT and there was no agreement between the two methods. However, it was able to have a positive correlation with the PACT, making it possible for the CNAP to track the hemodynamic changes during the post operative course.