BACKGROUND: To study the accuracy of cardiac output measurement by means of Electrical Impedance Cardiography (EIC) in post-cardiac surgery patients. METHODS: In a prospective study, we compared cardiac output measurements by means of thermodilution (COTD) with impedance cardiographic-derived values (COEIC) in 37 mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery. Both methods were used simultaneously. RESULTS: COEIC values were weakly correlated with COTD in the total group when the equation of Sramek-Bernstein was employed to calculate COEIC (r = 0.60, P < 0.001, mean difference and standard deviation: -0.06 +/- 1.25 l.min-1). After exclusion of the 12 patients whose body weight differed > 15% from their ideal body weight, no significant difference was found between the mean values (5.40 +/- 1.80 l.min-1 (COEIC) vs 5.31 +/- 1.69 l.min-1, n = 25) while the correlation coefficient increased substantially (r = 0.85, P < 0.001, mean difference and standard deviation: 0.09 +/- 0.96 l.min-1). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that weight is a very important factor in unreliable measurement of CO by impedance cardiography in cardiac surgery patients. The calculation equation as proposed by Sramek and Bernstein is not accurate enough in patients with more than 15% of weight deviation. Therefore, the use of impedance cardiography in these patients is of limited value until an accurate correction factor has been developed.
BACKGROUND: To study the accuracy of cardiac output measurement by means of Electrical Impedance Cardiography (EIC) in post-cardiac surgery patients. METHODS: In a prospective study, we compared cardiac output measurements by means of thermodilution (COTD) with impedance cardiographic-derived values (COEIC) in 37 mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery. Both methods were used simultaneously. RESULTS: COEIC values were weakly correlated with COTD in the total group when the equation of Sramek-Bernstein was employed to calculate COEIC (r = 0.60, P < 0.001, mean difference and standard deviation: -0.06 +/- 1.25 l.min-1). After exclusion of the 12 patients whose body weight differed > 15% from their ideal body weight, no significant difference was found between the mean values (5.40 +/- 1.80 l.min-1 (COEIC) vs 5.31 +/- 1.69 l.min-1, n = 25) while the correlation coefficient increased substantially (r = 0.85, P < 0.001, mean difference and standard deviation: 0.09 +/- 0.96 l.min-1). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that weight is a very important factor in unreliable measurement of CO by impedance cardiography in cardiac surgery patients. The calculation equation as proposed by Sramek and Bernstein is not accurate enough in patients with more than 15% of weight deviation. Therefore, the use of impedance cardiography in these patients is of limited value until an accurate correction factor has been developed.
Authors: Matthias Heringlake; Ulrich Handke; Thorsten Hanke; Frank Eberhardt; Jan Schumacher; Hartmut Gehring; Hermann Heinze Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2007-08-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: P B W Cox; A M den Ouden; M Theunissen; L J Montenij; A G H Kessels; M D Lancé; W F F A Buhre; M A E Marcus Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 3.411