Table 4 Comparison between GE E-PiCCO Jug and PiCCO® Jug: CIpc, CItd, GEDVI, EVLWI, and SVRI (n = 27).

From: Accuracy of hemodynamic parameters derived by GE E-PiCCO in comparison with PiCCO® in patients admitted to the intensive care unit

GE E-Picco jug Vs. Picco® jug

CIpc, l/min/m2

CItd, l/min/m2

GEDVI, ml/m2

EVLWI, ml/kg

SVRI, dyn⋅s⋅cm-5⋅m2

SVV, %

PPV, %

Bias [95% CI]

 − 0.11 [− 0.22; 0.01]

 − 0.12 [− 0.22; − 0.03]

 − 37.9 [− 56.4; − 19.4]

 − 0.1 [− 0.4; 0.1]

81.4 [2.1; 160.7]

 − 1.9 [4.0; 0.2]

 − 0.8 [− 1.7; 0.1]

SDDif × 1.96

0.57

0.46

91.8

1.4

392.9

5.9

2.4

Upper LoA [95% CI]

0.46 [0.26; 0.66]

0.33 [0.17; 0.49]

53.9 [21.9; 86.0]

1.3 [0.8; 1.8]

474.2 [337.0; 611.5]

4.0 [0.2; 7.8]

1.6 [0.1; 3.2]

Lower LoA [95% CI]

 − 0.67 [− 0.87; − 0.48]

 − 0.58 [− 0.74; − 0.42]

 − 129.7 [− 161.8; − 97.6]

 − 1.6 [− 2.0; − 1.1]

 − 311.5 [− 448.7; − 174.3]

 − 7.8 [− 11.6; − 4.0]

 − 3.2 [− 4.8; − 1.7]

PE, %

15.6%

12.7%

11.1%

15.4%

24.9%

81.7%

36.2%

  1. SDDif standard deviation of the difference between the methods, Upper LoA upper limits of agreement (bias + (1.96 × SDDif)), lower LoA lower limits of agreement (bias − (1.96 × SDDif)), PE percentage error.
Back to article page