Key result
The systolic volume balance method provided accurate cardiac output estimates compared with echocardiography (ICC = 0.74, mean difference = -0.22 ± 0.364 L/min).
Why the study?
Does the systolic volume balance method accurately and reproducibly estimate cardiac output compared to 2-D transthoracic echocardiography in human subjects?
Observational (n=22)
Does the systolic volume balance method accurately and reproducibly estimate cardiac output compared to 2-D transthoracic echocardiography in human subjects?
The novel systolic volume balance method provides highly reproducible and accurate non-invasive estimates of cardiac output compared with echocardiography.
Should not yet change clinical practice; leaves open prospective validation of this non-invasive method.
Surgical or critically ill patients often require continuous assessment of cardiac output (CO) for diagnostic purposes or for guiding therapeutic interventions. A new method of non-invasive CO estimation has been recently developed, which is based on pressure wave analysis. However, its validity has been examined only in silico. Aim of this study was to evaluate in vivo the reproducibility and accuracy of the "systolic volume balance" method (SVB). Twenty two subjects underwent 2-D transthoracic echocardiography for CO measurement (reference value of CO). The application of SVB method required aortic pressure wave analysis and estimation of total arterial compliance. Aortic pulses were derived by mathematical transformation of radial pressure waves recorded by applanation tonometry. Total compliance was estimated by the "pulse pressure" method. The agreement, association, variability, bias and precision between Doppler and SVB measures of CO were evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), mean difference, SD of differences, percentage error (PR) and Bland-Altman analysis. SVB yielded very reproducible CO estimates (ICC=0.84, mean difference 0.27 ± 0.73 L/min, PR = 16.7%). SVB-derived CO was comparable with Doppler measurements, indicating a good agreement and accuracy (ICC = 0.74, mean difference = -0.22 ± 0.364 L/min, PR ≈ 15). The basic mathematical and physical principles of the SVB method provide highly reproducible and accurate estimates of CO compared with echocardiography.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Papaioannou et al. (2014) reported an observational. Systolic volume balance (SVB) method vs. 2-D transthoracic echocardiography was evaluated on Agreement and accuracy of cardiac output estimation (MD -0.22 L/min). The systolic volume balance method provided accurate cardiac output estimates compared with echocardiography (ICC = 0.74, mean difference = -0.22 ± 0.364 L/min).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: