Table 5 Comparison between GE E-PiCCO Fem and PiCCO® Fem.

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 Fem vs. PiCCO® Fem

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]

0.03 [− 0.12; 0.17]

 − 0.02 [− 0.13; 0.08]

255.6 [208.8; 302.3]

 − 0.1 [− 0.5; 0.3]

11.4 [− 85.3; 108.1]

0.3 [− 0.8; 1.4]

0.1 [− 1.6; 1.8]

SDDif × 1.96

0.70

0.53

231.6

1.8

479.3

3.1

4.5

Upper LoA [95% CI]

0.72 [0.48; 0.97]

0.51 [0.32; 0.69]

487.2 [406.3; 568.1]

1.7 [1.1; 2.4]

490.7 [323.3; 658.1]

3.4 [1.4; 5.4]

4.7 [1.7; 7.6]

Lower LoA [95% CI]

 − 0.67 [− 0.92; − 0.43]

 − 0.55 [− 0.74; − 0.37]

24.0 [− 56.9; 104.8]

1.9 [− 2.6; − 1.3]

 − 46.9 [− 635.2; − 300.5]

 − 2.8 [− 4.8; − 0.8]

 − 4.5 [− 7.4; − 1.5]

PE, %

18.2%

13.9%

24.7%

17.9%

33.1%

38.7%

63.5%

  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