Why the study?
Does Portapres 2 compare accurately with impedance cardiography for estimating stroke volume and left ventricular ejection time in student subjects?
Does Portapres 2 compare accurately with impedance cardiography for estimating stroke volume and left ventricular ejection time in student subjects?
There is poor concurrent validity between Portapres 2 finger pulse pressure recordings and impedance cardiography for tracking hemodynamic changes such as stroke volume and left ventricular ejection time.
Portapres 2 shows poor concurrent validity with impedance cardiography; leaves open its utility for tracking hemodynamic changes in research.
Stroke volume estimates and left ventricular ejection time (1) derived from calibrated finger pulse pressure recordings (Portapres 2, TNO-BMI, Amsterdam) based on the Model Flow method and (2) derived from impedance cardiography were compared in 20 student subjects. The recordings were made for seven conditions: supine rest, standing, mental arithmetic, ergometer exercise 50 W, motor performance test, reading aloud, and walking. Findings indicated that caution is required in assuming concurrent validity for both methods in tracking haemodynamic changes. Within-subject correlations were low or even negligible. Basic discrepancies were evident regarding the estimation of left ventricular ejection time but obviously more sources of measurement error exist which necessitate further research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fahrenberg et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: