Why the study?
Is the direct Fick method applicable and accurate for measuring cardiac output during ramp exercise compared to steady-state exercise in patients with chronic health failure?
Is the direct Fick method applicable and accurate for measuring cardiac output during ramp exercise compared to steady-state exercise in patients with chronic health failure?
The direct Fick method can be clinically applied to accurately measure cardiac output during ramp exercise, serving as a good substitute for steady-state measurements.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Small differences support direct Fick during ramp exercise in heart failure; leaves open confirmation before changing steady-state protocols.
The purpose of this study was to clarify whether the direct Fick method is applicable to the measurement of cardiac output (Q) during ramp exercise. Twelve patients with chronic health failure underwent both a ramp exercise test and a steady-state exercise test. Oxygen intake (VO2), arterial oxygen saturation and mixed venous oxygen saturation were continuously measured using a pulse oximeter and a fiberoptic catheter, and the arteriovenous oxygen difference (a-v O2 diff) and Q were calculated. Both VO2 and a-v O2 diff were significantly lower in the ramp protocol than in the steady-state protocol when they were compared at the same workload. However, the VO2 vs Q relationship and the VO2 vs a-v O2 diff relationship were very similar in the 2 protocols. The difference between Q measured during steady-state exercise and Q calculated at the matched VO2 during ramp exercise was small (3.7 +/- 7.0% and 5.6 +/- 6.6%). The results indicate that, clinically, Q measured by the direct Fick method with simultaneous measurement of VO2 and a-v O2 diff during ramp exercise is a good substitute for the true Q measured by the steady-state protocol. We conclude that Fick Q is applicable to ramp exercise.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yamabe et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: