Abstract
Background The two-gasometry indirect Fick method (iFM) is commonly applied to estimate cardiac output (CO) and cardiac index (CI) in low-resource settings. Validation against other accessible methods such as transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is lacking.
Objective To determine agreement and clinical interchangeability of CO and CI measurements from TTE (reference test) and two-gasometry iFM (index test) in critical care patients from a low-resource hospital.
Methods Cross-sectional study including critical patients. CO and CI were measured by intensive care medicine residents with TTE (3 per patient-event) and the two-gasometry iFM (1 per patient-event). Agreement was evaluated using mean absolute difference, linear mixed-effects models, and Bland-Altman analysis for repeated measures with 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Precision, bias, and variability were quantified with coefficients of variation, error, and least significant change (LSC), with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) using bootstrapping.
Results A total 243 measurements were performed across 81 time points in 52 participants. Bland-Altman analysis and linear mixed-effects models revealed poor correlation for both CO (ICC = 0.09) and CI (ICC = -0.09). The mean bias between TTE and iFM was -1.59 L/min (95 LoA: -8.1 to 4.92) for CO and -1 L/min/m² (95% LoA: -4.8 to 2.8) for CI. The mean absolute percentage error of the two-gasometry iFM method compared to TTE was 57.5% (95%CI: 45.5 to 74.6). The LSC was 11.9% for TTE and 80.4% for two-gasometry iFM.
Conclusions The two-gasometry indirect Fick method performs poorly compared to TTE and should not be used for decision making in critical patients.
Highlights
The two-gasometry indirect Fick method shows poor agreement with transthoracic echocardiography for measuring cardiac output and cardiac index.
Bland-Altman analysis showed significant bias, high variability, and lack of precision of the two-gasometry indirect Fick method measurements.
Mean absolute percentage error of the two-gasometry indirect Fick method was 57.5%, far exceeding acceptable clinical limits.
The two-gasometry indirect Fick method is unsuitable for clinical decision-making in critically ill patients.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Orlando Ruben Perez-Nieto and Ashuin Kammar-Garcia received a stipend from the Mexican public entity CONAHCYT as part of the Sistema Nacional de Investigacion CONAHCYT to conduct their research activities.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The ethics and research committee of the Health Services of the State of Queretaro, Mexico gave ethical approval for this work (registration number: 1616/08/09/2024).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Harvard Dataverse DOI: 10.7910/DVN/J4ONSU. The code documenting the analysis in this study is openly available in the linked GitHub repository.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/J4ONSU.
