Cardiac Output, LowNCT02964663
Comparison of the Ability of the esCCO and the Volume View to Measure Trends in Cardiac Output During Cardiac Surgery
An observational study of Cardiac Output, Low and Anesthesia, run by Université Libre de Bruxelles at 1 site in Belgium.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study was to compare CO measured by two easy to use non-invasive monitors, the esCCO (Nihon Kohden, Tokyo, Japan) to the Volume View (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA) and to assess their trending ability in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Cardiac Output, Low, Anesthesia
- What is being tested?
- esCCO
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- How many people
- 19 participants
- Where
- 1 siteBelgium
- Study dates
- Nov 2013to Mar 2014
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery
Who may be able to join
- patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery
Who cannot join
- age less than 18 years
- known or potential pregnancy
- arrhythmias
- known significant tricuspid or aortic valve insufficiency
- left or right ventricular dysfunction
- peripheral arteriopathy
- low perfusion index.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
The purpose of this study was to compare CO measured by two easy to use non-invasive monitors, the esCCO (Nihon Kohden, Tokyo, Japan) to the Volume View (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA) and to assess their trending ability in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
Read the detailed description
Cardiac output (CO) is a major physiological variable that should be monitored closely during cardiac surgery in order to assess and guide therapeutic interventions so as to decrease postoperative morbidity. The purpose of this study was to compare CO measured by two easy to use non-invasive monitors, the esCCO (Nihon Kohden, Tokyo, Japan) to the Volume View (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA) and to assess their trending ability in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. After Internal review board approval and written informed consent, 19 patients were included in this study. Before cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), CO was measured simultaneously using both the esCCO and the Volume View device before and after 3 CO-modifying maneuvers [passive leg raise (PLR), end expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) at 10 cm H2O. Five CO values for esCCO and three for volume view were averaged and compared during a one minute period of time before and after each maneuver. The precision error and its 95% confidence interval (CI) that corresponds to the least significant change (LSC) were calculated within this period of time. The Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare bias, precision and limits of agreement (LOA) of both devices. Trending ability of CO changes was assessed by a modified 4 quadrant plot analysis, within angular limits of agreement considered as acceptable when the mean angle between both delta CO was less than 30°.
- Conditions
- Cardiac Output, Low, Anesthesia
- Being tested
- esCCO
- Medical subject headings
- Cardiac Output, Low
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
esCCODevice
Also called VV
comparison of non-invasive monitoring esCCO vs VV on cardiac output measurements
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
interchangeability of both devices (esCCO vs VV)
CO (L/min) was measured using esCCO and VV before and after 3 CO-modifying maneuvers (passive leg raise, PEEP of 10 cmH20, end expiratory occlusion test. Five CO values for esCCO and three for VV were averaged and compared during one minute period of time before and after each maneuver.
Measured: 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Nov 2016 (estimated)
- Study startNov 2013
- Primary completionMar 2014
- Study completionMar 2014
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Cardiac Output, LowStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 19 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Université Libre de Bruxelles
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Sarah Saxena, Université Libre de Bruxelles
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02964663
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- EsCCO vs VV
- Status last verified
- Nov 2016
- First submitted
- 5 Nov 2016
- Last updated
- 16 Nov 2016
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Nov 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of the Ability of the esCCO and the Volume View to Measure Trends in Cardiac Output During Cardiac Surgery
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02964663
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- EsCCO vs VV
- Conditions
- Cardiac Output, Low, Anesthesia
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 19 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Université Libre de BruxellesUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Nov 2013
- Primary completion
- Mar 2014 (actual)
- Study completion
- Mar 2014 (actual)
- First posted
- 16 Nov 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this study was to compare CO measured by two easy to use non-invasive monitors, the esCCO (Nihon Kohden, Tokyo, Japan) to the Volume View (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA) and to assess their trending ability in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
Detailed description
Cardiac output (CO) is a major physiological variable that should be monitored closely during cardiac surgery in order to assess and guide therapeutic interventions so as to decrease postoperative morbidity. The purpose of this study was to compare CO measured by two easy to use non-invasive monitors, the esCCO (Nihon Kohden, Tokyo, Japan) to the Volume View (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA) and to assess their trending ability in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. After Internal review board approval and written informed consent, 19 patients were included in this study. Before cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), CO was measured simultaneously using both the esCCO and the Volume View device before and after 3 CO-modifying maneuvers [passive leg raise (PLR), end expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) at 10 cm H2O. Five CO values for esCCO and three for volume view were averaged and compared during a one minute period of time before and after each maneuver. The precision error and its 95% confidence interval (CI) that corresponds to the least significant change (LSC) were calculated within this period of time. The Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare bias, precision and limits of agreement (LOA) of both devices. Trending ability of CO changes was assessed by a modified 4 quadrant plot analysis, within angular limits of agreement considered as acceptable when the mean angle between both delta CO was less than 30°.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- age less than 18 years
- known or potential pregnancy
- arrhythmias
- known significant tricuspid or aortic valve insufficiency
- left or right ventricular dysfunction
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| esCCOAlso: VVcomparison of non-invasive monitoring esCCO vs VV on cardiac output measurements | Device | – |
Primary outcome
interchangeability of both devices (esCCO vs VV)
Time frame: 6 months
CO (L/min) was measured using esCCO and VV before and after 3 CO-modifying maneuvers (passive leg raise, PEEP of 10 cmH20, end expiratory occlusion test. Five CO values for esCCO and three for VV were averaged and compared during one minute period of time before and after each maneuver.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 16 Nov 2016.
Related trials for Cardiac Output, Low
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Post-Induction Low Cardiac Output Syndrome in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Cardiac Output, Low, Coronary Arterial Disease
RecruitingObservational study
Validation of Continuous Transcutaneous Carbon Dioxide Monitoring in VA-ECMO Patients
Carbon Dioxide
RecruitingObservational study
Performance of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)-Derived Parameters in Predicting Low Cardiac Output Syndrome
Low Cardiac Output Syndrome Bypass Children
Recruiting
Assessment of Cardiac Function and Anesthesia Depth in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery
Heart Disease
Enrolling by invitation
LBBP + CSP Versus LBBP Alone for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
Heart Failure Low Output
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Cardiac Output, Low and Anesthesia, run by Université Libre de Bruxelles at 1 site in Belgium.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Nov 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Belgium. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
interchangeability of both devices (esCCO vs VV) (time frame: 6 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 16 Nov 2016.