Key result
Noninvasive whole-body impedance cardiography showed unsatisfactory agreement with invasive thermodilution for measuring cardiac output (mean difference 1.62 L/min, limits of agreement +/- 4.64 L/min).
Why the study?
Does noninvasive whole-body impedance cardiography accurately measure cardiac output compared to invasive thermodilution in high-risk surgical patients?
Observational (n=22)
No
Does noninvasive whole-body impedance cardiography accurately measure cardiac output compared to invasive thermodilution in high-risk surgical patients?
Mean Difference: 1.62
p-value: p=< .001
Whole-body impedance cardiography shows unsatisfactory agreement with invasive thermodilution and cannot be recommended for assessing the hemodynamic state of high-risk surgical patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Unsatisfactory agreement cautions against clinical use of whole-body impedance cardiography; leaves open need for validated noninvasive alternatives in high-risk surgery.
Imhoff et al. (2000) conducted an observational in High-risk surgical patients (n=22). Noninvasive whole-body impedance cardiography vs. Invasive thermodilution was evaluated on Cardiac output measurement agreement (MD 1.62 L/min, p=< .001). Noninvasive whole-body impedance cardiography showed unsatisfactory agreement with invasive thermodilution for measuring cardiac output (mean difference 1.62 L/min, limits of agreement +/- 4.64 L/min).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: