Comparing the Mutual Interchangeability of ECOM, FloTrac/Vigileo, 3D-TEE, and ITD-PAC Cardiac Output Measuring Systems in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

•Four methods of cardiac output (CO) measurement were compared for interchangeability..•Invasive: Reference gold standard intermittent thermodilution via pulmonary artery catheter•Less invasive: Endotracheal Cardiac Output Monitor, FloTrac/Vigileo system , 3D Transesophageal Echocardiography.•Accuracy, precision & trending were compared. None of the methods were interchangeable with each other.•Less-invasive methods of CO will continue to play a role in the hemodynamic management of patients. The aim of this study was to compare the mutual interchangeability of 4 cardiac output measuring devices by comparing their accuracy, precision, and trending ability. A single-center prospective observational study. Nonuniversity teaching hospital, single center. Forty-four consecutive patients scheduled for elective, nonemergent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The cardiac output was measured for each participant using 4 methods: intermittent thermodilution via pulmonary artery catheter (ITD-PAC), Endotracheal Cardiac Output Monitor (ECOM), FloTrac/Vigileo System (FLOTRAC), and 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3D-TEE). Measurements were performed simultaneously at 5 time points: presternotomy, poststernotomy, before cardiopulmonary bypass, after cardiopulmonary bypass, and after sternal closure. A series of statistical and comparison analyses including ANOVA, Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman plots, quadrant plots, and polar plots were performed, and inherent precision for each method and percent errors for mutual interchangeability were calculated. For the 6 two-by-two comparisons of the methods, the Pearson correlation coefficients (r), the percentage errors (% error), and concordance ratios (CR) were as follows: ECOM_versus_ITD-PAC (r = 0.611, % error = 53%, CR = 75%); FLOTRAC_versus_ITD-PAC (r = 0.676, % error = 49%, CR = 77%); 3D-TEE versus ITD-PAC (r = 0.538, % error = 64%, CR = 67%); FLOTRAC_versus_ECOM (r = 0.627, % error = 51%, CR = 75%); 3D-TEE_versus ECOM (r = 0.423, % error = 70%, CR = 60%), and 3D-TEE_versus_FLOTRAC (r = 0.602, % error = 59%, CR = 61%). Based on the recommended statistical measures of interchangeability, ECOM, FLOTRAC, and 3D-TEE are not interchangeable with each other or to the reference standard invasive ITD-PAC method in patients undergoing nonemergent cardiac bypass surgery. Despite the negative result in this study and the majority of previous studies, these less-invasive methods of CO have continued to be used