Literature DB >> 27072988

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.

Martin Ernst Blohm1, Jana Hartwich2, Denise Obrecht2, Jan Felix Kersten3, Dominique Singer2.   

Abstract

This prospective single-center observational study compared impedance cardiography [electrical velocimetry (EV)] with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE, based on trans-aortic flow) and analyzed the influence of physiological shunts, such as patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) or patent foramen ovale (PFO), on measurement accuracy. Two hundred and ninety-one triplicate simultaneous paired left ventricular stroke volume (LVSV) measurements by EV (LVSVEV) and TTE (LVSVTTE) in 99 spontaneously breathing neonates (mean weight 3270 g; range 1227-4600 g) were included. For the whole cohort, the mean absolute LVSVEV was 5.5 mL, mean LVSVTTE was 4.9 mL, resulting in an absolute Bland-Altman bias of -0.7 mL (limits of agreement LOA -3.0 to 1.7 mL), relative bias -12.8 %; mean percentage error MPE 44.9 %; true precision TPEV 33.4 % (n = 99 aggregated data points). In neonates without shunts (n = 32): mean LVSVEV 5.0 mL, mean LVSVTTE 4.6 mL, Bland-Altman bias -0.4 mL (LOA -2.8 to 2.0 mL), relative bias -8.2 %; MPE 50.7 %; TPEV 40.9 %. In neonates with shunts (PDA and/or PFO; n = 67): mean LVSVEV 5.8 mL, mean LVSVTTE 5.0 mL, bias -0.8 mL (LOA -3.1 to 1.5 mL), relative bias -14.8 %, MPE 41.9 %, TPEV 29.3 %. Accuracy was affected by PDA and/or PFO, with a significant increase in the relative difference in LVSVEV versus LVSVTTE: Subjects without shunts -2.9 % (n = 91), PFO alone -9.6 % (n = 125), PDA alone -14.0 % (n = 12), and PDA and PFO -18.5 % (n = 63). Physiological shunts (PDA and/or PFO) in neonates affect measurement accuracy and cause overestimation of LVSVEV compared with LVSVTTE.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Echocardiography; Impedance cardiography; Neonate; Patent ductus arteriosus; Patent foramen ovale; Stroke volume

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27072988     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-016-9878-9

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


  46 in total

Review 1.  Doppler-based hemodynamic monitoring: a minimally invasive alternative.

Authors:  Maureen A Turner
Journal:  AACN Clin Issues       Date:  2003-05

2.  How to "validate" newly developed cardiac output monitoring devices.

Authors:  J J Vos; T W L Scheeren
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  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

4.  Impact of early haemodynamic goal-directed therapy in patients undergoing emergency surgery: an open prospective, randomised trial.

Authors:  Gordana Pavlovic; John Diaper; Christoph Ellenberger; Angela Frei; Karim Bendjelid; Fanny Bonhomme; Marc Licker
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 2.502

5.  Influence of patent ductus arteriosus and ventilators on electrical velocimetry for measuring cardiac output in very-low/low birth weight infants.

Authors:  T Torigoe; S Sato; Y Nagayama; T Sato; H Yamazaki
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 2.521

6.  Influence of physiological sources on the impedance cardiogram analyzed using 4D FEM simulations.

Authors:  Mark Ulbrich; Jens Mühlsteff; Steffen Leonhardt; Marian Walter
Journal:  Physiol Meas       Date:  2014-06-05       Impact factor: 2.833

Review 7.  Electrophysiologic principles and theory of stroke volume determination by thoracic electrical bioimpedance.

Authors:  M J Osypka; D P Bernstein
Journal:  AACN Clin Issues       Date:  1999-08

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Why measure cardiac output?

Authors:  Michael R Pinsky
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2003-01-10       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  4 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 2017 end of year summary: cardiovascular and hemodynamic monitoring.

Authors:  Bernd Saugel; Karim Bendjelid; Lester A H Critchley; Thomas W L Scheeren
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Electrical velocimetry for non-invasive monitoring of the closure of the ductus arteriosus in preterm infants.

Authors:  Ana Rodríguez Sánchez de la Blanca; M Sánchez Luna; N González Pacheco; M Arriaga Redondo; N Navarro Patiño
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 3.183

4.  Accuracy and Trending Ability of Electrical Biosensing Technology for Non-invasive Cardiac Output Monitoring in Neonates: A Systematic Qualitative Review.

Authors:  Lizelle Van Wyk; Samir Gupta; John Lawrenson; Willem-Pieter de Boode
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 3.418

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.