Key result
Electrical cardiometry cannot replace reference methods for cardiac output measurement, as its mean percentage error (48.0% in adults, 42.0% in pediatrics) exceeded the 30% clinically acceptable limit.
Why the study?
Invasive reference methods for cardiac output monitoring carry complications, and validation studies of non-invasive electrical cardiometry have reported conflicting accuracy and precision.
Does electrical cardiometry accurately and precisely measure cardiac output compared to reference methods in adult and pediatric patients?
Population
13 studies in adults (620 patients) and 11 studies in pediatrics (603 patients)
Comparison
Electrical cardiometry vs reference method cardiac output measurement
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Loading...
Electrical cardiometry should not replace reference methods for absolute cardiac output in practice; confirms excessive error limits its validity in adults and children.
Meta-Analysis (n=1,223)
Does electrical cardiometry accurately and precisely measure cardiac output compared to reference methods in adult and pediatric patients?
Mean Difference: 0.03 (95% CI -0.23–0.29)
Electrical cardiometry has a low pooled bias but an unacceptably high mean percentage error, indicating it cannot currently replace thermodilution or echocardiography for absolute cardiac output measurement.
Sanders et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis in Patients requiring cardiac output monitoring (n=1,223). Electrical cardiometry vs. Reference methods (thermodilution, echocardiography, etc.) was evaluated on Accuracy (bias) of cardiac output measurement in adults (Bias 0.03 L/min, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.29). Electrical cardiometry cannot replace reference methods for cardiac output measurement, as its mean percentage error (48.0% in adults, 42.0% in pediatrics) exceeded the 30% clinically acceptable limit.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: