Why the study?
Does the mitral inflow method using pulsed Doppler echocardiography accurately measure cardiac output compared to thermodilution in patients?
Does the mitral inflow method using pulsed Doppler echocardiography accurately measure cardiac output compared to thermodilution in patients?
The mitral inflow method using pulsed Doppler echocardiography is a valid non-invasive alternative to thermodilution for measuring cardiac output and assessing relative changes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support Doppler for non-invasive CO tracking; leaves open prospective validation before clinical use.
The mitral inflow method of measuring cardiac output with pulsed Doppler two-dimensional echocardiography was developed and validated against the thermodilution technique in 42 patients. A mitral inflow method combined the velocity of left ventricular inflow at the mitral annulus (apical long-axis view) with the cross-sectional area of the annulus calculated from its diameter (parasternal long-axis view). A good correlation was observed between thermodilution and Doppler measurements of cardiac output (r = 0.93). The ratio of Doppler measurements to thermodilution measurements will be between 0.76 and 1.15 for about 95% of cases. There was a good correlation between percentage change in thermal cardiac output and those in Doppler cardiac output (r = 0.95); the limits of agreement were -11.5% to 10.5%, suggesting that this method can be most useful for assessing relative changes in cardiac output.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shimamoto et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: