Literature DB >> 26115774

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

Frederik Trinkmann1, Manuel Berger1, Christina Doesch1,2, Theano Papavassiliu1,2, Stefan O Schoenberg3,2, Martin Borggrefe1,2, Jens J Kaden1, Joachim Saur4.   

Abstract

A novel algorithm of impedance cardiography referred to as electrical velocimetry (EV) has been introduced for non-invasive determination of cardiac output (CO). Previous validation studies yielded diverging results and no comparison with the non-invasive gold standard cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has been performed. We therefore aimed to prospectively assess the accuracy and reproducibility of EV compared to CMR. 152 consecutive stable patients undergoing CMR were enrolled. EV measurements were taken twice before or after CMR in supine position and averaged over 20 s (AESCULON(®), Osypka Medical, Berlin, Germany). Bland-Altman analysis showed insufficient agreement of EV and CMR with a mean bias of 1.2 ± 1.4 l/min (bias 23 ± 26 %, percentage error 51 %). Reproducibility was high with 0.0 ± 0.3 l/min (bias 0 ± 8 %, percentage error 15 %). Outlier analysis revealed gender, height, CO and stroke volume (SV) by CMR as independent predictors for larger variation. Stratification of COCMR in quintiles demonstrated a good agreement for low values (<4.4 l/min) with bias increasing significantly with quintile as high as 3.1 ± 1.1 l/min (p < 0.001). Reproducibility was not affected (p = 0.71). Subgroup analysis in patients with arrhythmias (p = 0.19), changes in thoracic fluid content (p = 0.51) or left heart failure (p = 0.47) could not detect significant differences in accuracy. EV showed insufficient agreement with CMR and good reproducibility. Gender, height and increasing CO and SV were associated with increased bias while not affecting reproducibility. Therefore, absolute values should not be used interchangeably in clinical routine. EV yet may find its place for clinical application with further investigation on its trending ability pending.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; Cardiac output; Electrical velocimetry; Impedance cardiography; Non-invasive

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26115774     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-015-9731-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  40 in total

1.  Comparison of electrical velocimetry and transthoracic thermodilution technique for cardiac output assessment in critically ill patients.

Authors:  Wieland Raue; Marc Swierzy; Gerold Koplin; Wolfgang Schwenk
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.330

2.  Bioreactance is not reliable for estimating cardiac output and the effects of passive leg raising in critically ill patients.

Authors:  E Kupersztych-Hagege; J-L Teboul; A Artigas; A Talbot; C Sabatier; C Richard; X Monnet
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 9.166

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

Authors:  Frederik Trinkmann; Christina Doesch; Theano Papavassiliu; Joerg Weissmann; Dariusch Haghi; Joachim Gruettner; Stefan O Schoenberg; Martin Borggrefe; Jens J Kaden; Joachim Saur
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.882

4.  A comparative evaluation of electrical velocimetry and inert gas rebreathing for the non-invasive assessment of cardiac output.

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

5.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Effect of endocardial trabeculae on left ventricular measurements and measurement reproducibility at cardiovascular MR imaging.

Authors:  Theano Papavassiliu; Harald P Kühl; Meike Schröder; Tim Süselbeck; Olga Bondarenko; Christoph K Böhm; Aernout Beek; Mark M B Hofman; Albert C van Rossum
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-06-13       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Reliability of the thermodilution method in the determination of cardiac output in clinical practice.

Authors:  C W Stetz; R G Miller; G E Kelly; T A Raffin
Journal:  Am Rev Respir Dis       Date:  1982-12

8.  Electrical velocimetry as a tool for measuring cardiac output in small infants after heart surgery.

Authors:  Oswin Grollmuss; Serge Demontoux; André Capderou; Alain Serraf; Emre Belli
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2012-03-30       Impact factor: 17.440

9.  Comparison of electrical velocimetry and transpulmonary thermodilution for measuring cardiac output in piglets.

Authors:  Wilhelm Alexander Osthaus; Dirk Huber; Carsten Beck; Michael Winterhalter; Dietmar Boethig; Armin Wessel; Robert Sümpelmann
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.556

10.  Noninvasive determination of cardiac output by the inert-gas-rebreathing method--comparison with cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Joachim Saur; Stephan Fluechter; Frederik Trinkmann; Theano Papavassiliu; Stefan Schoenberg; Joerg Weissmann; Dariusch Haghi; Martin Borggrefe; Jens J Kaden
Journal:  Cardiology       Date:  2009-08-07       Impact factor: 1.869

View more
  5 in total

1.  Accuracy and precision of non-invasive cardiac output monitoring by electrical cardiometry: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  M Sanders; S Servaas; C Slagt
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-06-07       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 2.  Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2016 end of year summary: cardiovascular and hemodynamic monitoring.

Authors:  Bernd Saugel; Karim Bendjelid; Lester A Critchley; Steffen Rex; Thomas W L Scheeren
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-01-07       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Effect of patent ductus arteriosus and patent foramen ovale on left ventricular stroke volume measurement by electrical velocimetry in comparison to transthoracic echocardiography in neonates.

Authors:  Martin Ernst Blohm; Jana Hartwich; Denise Obrecht; Jan Felix Kersten; Dominique Singer
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 2.502

4.  Effect of hemodialysis on impedance cardiography (electrical velocimetry) parameters in children.

Authors:  Meike Wilken; Jun Oh; Hans O Pinnschmidt; Dominique Singer; Martin E Blohm
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2019-12-14       Impact factor: 3.714

5.  Can bioimpedance cardiography assess hemodynamic response to passive leg raising in critically ill patients: A STROBE-compliant study.

Authors:  Li Li; Yuhang Ai; Li Huang; Meilin Ai; Qianyi Peng; Lina Zhang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 1.817

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.