Key result
USCOM showed poor agreement with thermodilution for cardiac output measurement, with an aortic window bias of -0.79 l/min (limits of agreement -3.66 to 2.08 l/min).
Why the study?
Does the USCOM device provide accurate cardiac output measurements compared to thermodilution and transoesophageal echocardiography in ASA PS4 cardiac surgical patients?
Observational (n=22)
Does the USCOM device provide accurate cardiac output measurements compared to thermodilution and transoesophageal echocardiography in ASA PS4 cardiac surgical patients?
Mean Difference: -0.79 (95% CI -3.66–2.08)
The USCOM device shows poor agreement with standard thermodilution and TEE measurements for cardiac output in cardiac surgical patients, partly due to errors in estimated valve area.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
USCOM should not replace thermodilution for cardiac output in cardiac surgical patients; leaves open its role pending prospective validation.
Oever et al. (2007) conducted an observational in ASA PS4 cardiac surgical patients (n=22). USCOM (Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitors) vs. Thermodilution and transoesophageal echocardiography was evaluated on Agreement between USCOM and thermodilution cardiac outputs (Bias -0.79 l/min, 95% CI -3.66 to 2.08). USCOM showed poor agreement with thermodilution for cardiac output measurement, with an aortic window bias of -0.79 l/min (limits of agreement -3.66 to 2.08 l/min).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: