Abstract
Cardiac output monitoring is used in critically ill and high-risk surgical patients. Intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution and transpulmonary thermodilution, considered the gold standard, are invasive and linked to complications. Therefore, many non-invasive cardiac output devices have been developed and studied. One of those is electrical cardiometry. The results of validation studies are conflicting, which emphasize the need for definitive validation of accuracy and precision. We performed a database search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library of Clinical Trials to identify studies comparing cardiac output measurement by electrical cardiometry and a reference method. Pooled bias, limits of agreement (LoA) and mean percentage error (MPE) were calculated using a random-effects model. A pooled MPE of less than 30% was considered clinically acceptable. A total of 13 studies in adults (620 patients) and 11 studies in pediatrics (603 patients) were included. For adults, pooled bias was 0.03 L min(-1) [95% CI - 0.23; 0.29], LoA - 2.78 to 2.84 L min(-1) and MPE 48.0%. For pediatrics, pooled bias was - 0.02 L min(-1) [95% CI - 0.09; 0.05], LoA - 1.22 to 1.18 L min(-1) and MPE 42.0%. Inter-study heterogeneity was high for both adults (I(2) = 93%, p < 0.0001) and pediatrics (I(2) = 86%, p < 0.0001). Despite the low bias for both adults and pediatrics, the MPE was not clinically acceptable. Electrical cardiometry cannot replace thermodilution and transthoracic echocardiography for the measurement of absolute cardiac output values. Future research should explore it's clinical use and indications.