Automated cardiac output measurements by ultrasound are inaccurate at high cardiac outputs

Başdoğan, Faruk; Visser, Willy; Struijk, P. C.; Jansen, Jos R. C.; Vletter, Wim B.; Wladimiroff, J. W.; Lotgering, F.K.

doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00128.x

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CO measurements were performed using TTE in 19 studies[2, 13, 23, 26, 27, 41, 44–46, 49–51, 58, 64, 68, 70, 73, 75], TEE in 24 [6–8, 18, 20, 30–32, 34, 42, 47, 48, 52–57, 59–63, 77], USCOM in 14 [4, 19, 22, 25, 28, 39, 40, 43, 65–67, 69, 72, 74], UD in 4 [29, 33, 36, 71], and other types of echocardiography in 7 [10, 21, 24, 35, 37, 38, 61]. CO measurements were performed in the AA in 13 studies [2, 4, 19, 24, 27, 28, 32, 35, 37, 41, 45, 47, 70], AOV in 18 […”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The bias in three studies[2, 21, 25] was > 2.0 L/min. One of these studies[21] used the ACM to monitor the CO in patients with high cardiac output (pregnant and pre-eclamptic women) and found that it was inaccurate compared with TD. Another study[2] found that the mean difference was larger in the spontaneous ventilation state than the intermittent positive pressure ventilation and apnea state.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cardiac output measurements via echocardiography versus thermodilution: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Echocardiography, as a noninvasive hemodynamic evaluation technique, is frequently used in critically ill patients. Different opinions exist regarding whether it can be interchanged with traditional invasive means, such as the pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution (TD) technique. This systematic review aimed to analyze the consistency and interchangeability of cardiac output measurements by ultrasound (US) and TD. Five electronic databases were searched for studies including clinical trials conducted up to June 2019 in which patients’ cardiac output was measured by ultrasound techniques (echocardiography) and TD. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers who used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), which was tailored according to our systematic review in Review Manager 5.3. A total of 68 studies with 1996 patients were identified as eligible. Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were used to compare the cardiac output (CO) measured using the different types of echocardiography and different sites of Doppler use with TD. No significant differences were found between US and TD (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.14; 95% confidence interval, -0.30 to 0.02; P = 0.08). No significant differences were observed in the subgroup analyses using different types of echocardiography and different sites except for ascending aorta (AA) (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.37; 95% confidence interval, -0.74 to -0.01; P = 0.05) of Doppler use. The median of bias and limits of agreement were -0.12 and ±0.94 L/min, respectively; the median of correlation coefficient was 0.827 (range, 0.140–0.998). Although the difference in CO between echocardiography by different types or sites and TD was not entirely consistent, the overall effect of meta-analysis showed that no significant differences were observed between US and TD. The techniques may be interchangeable under certain conditions.

show abstract