BACKGROUND: An easy, noninvasive and accurate technique for measuring cardiac output (CO) would be desirable for the diagnosis and therapy of cardiac diseases. Innocor, a novel inert-gas-rebreathing (IGR) system, has shown promising results in smaller studies. An extensive evaluation in a larger, less homogeneous patient collective is lacking. METHODS: We prospectively assessed the accuracy and reproducibility of CO measurements obtained by IGR in 305 consecutive patients as compared to the noninvasive gold standard, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis showed a good correspondence of the two methods for CO measurement with an average deviation of 0.2 +/- 1.0 liters/min (mean +/- SD) and a good reproducibility with a mean bias of 0.2 +/- 0.5 liters/min. The accuracy of the present measurements at rest was significantly better in the physiological range than in higher or lower CO ranges. The error levels set forth by current recommendations were exceeded. CONCLUSION: The data show that IGR measurements are easy to perform and show good agreement with CMR; however, the technique appears to be less accurate in extreme CO ranges at rest. The clinical importance of the IGR method remains to be proven by further studies.
BACKGROUND: An easy, noninvasive and accurate technique for measuring cardiac output (CO) would be desirable for the diagnosis and therapy of cardiac diseases. Innocor, a novel inert-gas-rebreathing (IGR) system, has shown promising results in smaller studies. An extensive evaluation in a larger, less homogeneous patient collective is lacking. METHODS: We prospectively assessed the accuracy and reproducibility of CO measurements obtained by IGR in 305 consecutive patients as compared to the noninvasive gold standard, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis showed a good correspondence of the two methods for CO measurement with an average deviation of 0.2 +/- 1.0 liters/min (mean +/- SD) and a good reproducibility with a mean bias of 0.2 +/- 0.5 liters/min. The accuracy of the present measurements at rest was significantly better in the physiological range than in higher or lower CO ranges. The error levels set forth by current recommendations were exceeded. CONCLUSION: The data show that IGR measurements are easy to perform and show good agreement with CMR; however, the technique appears to be less accurate in extreme CO ranges at rest. The clinical importance of the IGR method remains to be proven by further studies.
Authors: Sebastiaan A Bartels; Wim J Stok; Rick Bezemer; Remco J Boksem; Jeroen van Goudoever; Thomas G V Cherpanath; Johannes J van Lieshout; Berend E Westerhof; John M Karemaker; Can Ince Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2011-10-15 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Frederik Trinkmann; Manuel Berger; Ursula Hoffmann; Martin Borggrefe; Jens J Kaden; Joachim Saur Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Frederik Trinkmann; Manuel Berger; Christina Doesch; Theano Papavassiliu; Stefan O Schoenberg; Martin Borggrefe; Jens J Kaden; Joachim Saur Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-06-27 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Ksenija Stach; Julia D Michels; Christina Doesch; Joachim Brade; Theano Papavassiliu; Martin Borggrefe; Ibrahim Akin; Joachim Saur; Frederik Trinkmann Journal: Biomed Rep Date: 2019-07-18
Authors: Tobias Täger; Clara Wiebalck; Hanna Fröhlich; Anna Corletto; Hugo A Katus; Lutz Frankenstein Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Joachim Saur; Frederik Trinkmann; Christina Doesch; Armin Scherhag; Joachim Brade; Stefan O Schoenberg; Martin Borggrefe; Jens J Kaden; Theano Papavassiliu Journal: Lung Date: 2010-07-31 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: Mohammed Ebrahim; Sanjeet Hegde; Beth Printz; Mark Abcede; James A Proudfoot; Christopher Davis Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 1.655