Literature DB >> 20043339

A novel noninvasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance.

Frederik Trinkmann1, Christina Doesch, Theano Papavassiliu, Joerg Weissmann, Dariusch Haghi, Joachim Gruettner, Stefan O Schoenberg, Martin Borggrefe, Jens J Kaden, Joachim Saur.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: USCOM, a novel continuous wave Doppler (CWD) device, has been introduced for noninvasive determination of cardiac output (CO). The present study aimed to compare the accuracy and reproducibility of the new device, using cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) as the noninvasive gold standard. METHODS AND
RESULTS: The CO of 56 consecutive patients was prospectively determined by CWD either before or after CMR imaging. The CWD probe was placed in the suprasternal or supraclavicular notch aiming at the aortic valve. Valid CWD signals could be obtained in 45 patients yielding a CO of 5.3+/-1.1 L/min (range, 3.0-7.5 L/min) by CMR and 4.7+/-1.1 L/min by CWD (2.5-8.0 L/min, P = .004), respectively. CWD measurements showed an acceptable agreement with CMR (bias: 0.6+/-1.1 L/min) and a high reproducibility (bias: 0.1+/-0.4 L/min). Higher CO and body mass index (BMI) were identified as sources of inaccuracy in univariate analysis. By multivariate analysis, only CO(CMR) was found to be independently associated with larger variation. Estimated diameters of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), a prerequisite for CO measurement by CWD, correlated only weakly with those measured by CMR.
CONCLUSIONS: Continuous wave Doppler is a feasible technique for measuring cardiac function. Although the overall agreement with CMR was acceptable, CWD showed a trend to underestimate CO. The estimated LVOT diameter by CWD is likely to be an important source of error. Nevertheless, the CWD device could be of clinical use especially for detection of intraindividual hemodynamic changes since a high reproducibility could be demonstrated. Copyright 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20043339      PMCID: PMC6653547          DOI: 10.1002/clc.20612

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cardiol        ISSN: 0160-9289            Impact factor:   2.882


  4 in total

1.  Comparison of electrical velocimetry and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for the non-invasive determination of cardiac output.

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

2.  Authors' Response to a Letter to the Editor.

Authors:  Avichai Weissbach
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 1.655

3.  Cardiac index measurements by transcutaneous Doppler ultrasound and transthoracic echocardiography in adult and pediatric emergency patients.

Authors:  H Bryant Nguyen; Daryl P Banta; Gail Stewart; Tommy Kim; Ramesh Bansal; James Anholm; William A Wittlake; Stephen W Corbett
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2010-06-20       Impact factor: 2.502

4.  Ultrasound Cardiac Output Monitor (USCOM™) Measurements Prove Unreliable Compared to Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Adolescents with Cardiac Disease.

Authors:  Avichai Weissbach; Amichay Rotstein; Yaniv Lakovsky; Eytan Kaplan; Gili Kadmon; Einat Birk; Elhanan Nahum
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 1.655

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.