BACKGROUND: Bloodflow measurements are of major clinical importance for quality control in vascular surgery. They allow detection of low-flow situations which may influence outcome adversely. The purpose of the present study was to validate three different flow systems for measuring absolute blood flow. METHODS: Measurements were performed in an experimental flow model using arteries and veins and blood or saline at two different temperatures. As a reference method true flow was measured by volume sampling. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients between transit time flow and true flow measurements ranged between 0.71 and 0.92. Systematic overestimation and underestimation of transit time flow were observed, but after second-order correction all correlations were excellent, ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 irrespective of flow medium and temperature. CONCLUSIONS: Transit time flow measurements are exact and reproducible. Second-order correction yields good accuracy and high precision, with minimal differences among the three systems evaluated.
BACKGROUND: Bloodflow measurements are of major clinical importance for quality control in vascular surgery. They allow detection of low-flow situations which may influence outcome adversely. The purpose of the present study was to validate three different flow systems for measuring absolute blood flow. METHODS: Measurements were performed in an experimental flow model using arteries and veins and blood or saline at two different temperatures. As a reference method true flow was measured by volume sampling. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients between transit time flow and true flow measurements ranged between 0.71 and 0.92. Systematic overestimation and underestimation of transit time flow were observed, but after second-order correction all correlations were excellent, ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 irrespective of flow medium and temperature. CONCLUSIONS: Transit time flow measurements are exact and reproducible. Second-order correction yields good accuracy and high precision, with minimal differences among the three systems evaluated.
Authors: T Schubert; F Santini; A F Stalder; J Bock; S Meckel; L Bonati; M Markl; S Wetzel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Matthew A Ziegler; Matthew R DiStasi; Steven J Miller; Michael C Dalsing; Joseph L Unthank Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2015-10-31 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Jurgen van Limmen; Xavier Iturriagagoitia; Marilie Verougstraete; Piet Wyffels; Frederik Berrevoet; Luís Filipe Abreu de Carvalho; Stefan De Hert; Luc De Baerdemaeker Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2022-07-02 Impact factor: 2.376