Comparison of two methods for cardiac output measurement in critically ill patients† E. Saraceni, S. Rossi, P. Persona, M. Dan, S. Rizzi, M. Meroni, C. Ori British Journal of Anaesthesia Volume 106, Issue 5, Pages 690-694 (May 2011) DOI: 10.1093/bja/aer030 Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions
Fig 1 Distribution of the differences between the two systems of measurement. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2011 106, 690-694DOI: (10.1093/bja/aer030) Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions
Fig 2 Scatter plot showing values of CO provided by thermodilution vs CO provided by FloTrac/Vigileo (both 1.07 and 1.10 versions). British Journal of Anaesthesia 2011 106, 690-694DOI: (10.1093/bja/aer030) Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions
Fig 3 The Bland–Altman analysis of CO of all enrolled patients. Thermodilution, pulmonary artery thermodilution; Vigileo, FloTrac/Vigileo device. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2011 106, 690-694DOI: (10.1093/bja/aer030) Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions
Fig 4 The Bland–Altman analysis for the two different software versions; (a) software version 1.07 and (b) software version 1.10. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2011 106, 690-694DOI: (10.1093/bja/aer030) Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions
Fig 5 The Bland–Altman analysis for the two different software versions. To exclude the mixing of data, we calculated the mean difference between measurements for each patient; each point represents one patient. (a) Software version 1.07 and (b) software version 1.10. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2011 106, 690-694DOI: (10.1093/bja/aer030) Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions