Why the study?
Does non-invasive ultrasound-Doppler accurately determine cardiac output compared to the invasive direct Fick method in patients with cardiac disease?
Does non-invasive ultrasound-Doppler accurately determine cardiac output compared to the invasive direct Fick method in patients with cardiac disease?
Ultrasound-Doppler provides a reliable non-invasive alternative to the invasive Fick method for measuring cardiac output and stroke volume in patients with cardiac disease, including heart transplant recipients.
Supports ultrasound-Doppler for non-invasive CO assessment in cardiac disease; leaves open prospective validation before replacing Fick.
A non-invasive method for cardiac output determination (COD) based on ultrasound-Doppler technique was evaluated in patients with cardiac disease at rest and during exercise, including patients with heart transplants. The aortic blood flow velocity was measured with pulsed Doppler technique from the jugulum, placing the sample volume just above the aortic valve, and the area from a parasternal 2-D echocardiographic measurement of the aortic annulus diameter assuming a circular area. Cardiac output was calculated as the product of the systolic velocity integral, the aortic annulus area and the heart rate. A high correlation was found between this method and a simultaneously performed invasive cardiac output (COF) and stroke volume (SVF) determination by the direct Fick method (COD = 0.3 + 0.9 x COF, r = 0.96, SDres = 0.5 l min-1 and SVD = 3.9 + 0.92 x SVF, r = 0.94, SDres = 6.9 ml). However, looking just at the systolic velocity integral compared to stroke index determined with the Fick method we found a low correlation, especially in patients with heart transplants. We conclude that cardiac output can reliably be measured non-invasively with this method--also in patients with heart transplants. The systolic velocity integral alone can be used for assessing changes in stroke volume but for absolute values of stroke volume and stroke index flow area should also be determined.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Janerot-Sjöberg et al. (1990) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: