Key result
Stroke volume measured by the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) showed very strong correlation with conventional echocardiography (mean difference 0.33 mL, r2 = 0.956).
Why the study?
Does the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) provide comparable cardiac output measurements to conventional echocardiography in intensive care patients without aortic stenosis?
Population
121 patients admitted to the intensive care units of two hospitals, excluding those with aortic stenosis…
Comparison
Ultrasonic cardiac output monitor using… vs Conventional echocardiography
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Supports USCOM as a reliable, non-invasive alternative for hemodynamic monitoring in the ICU; leaves open.
Observational (n=121)
Yes
Does the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) provide comparable cardiac output measurements to conventional echocardiography in intensive care patients without aortic stenosis?
Mean Difference: 0.33
USCOM provides a reliable, non-invasive alternative to conventional echocardiography for measuring cardiac output in critically ill patients without aortic stenosis.
Elgendy et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Intensive care patients (n=121). Ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) vs. Conventional echocardiography was evaluated on Level of agreement between cardiac output measured with conventional echocardiography and with USCOM (stroke volume) (MD 0.33). Stroke volume measured by the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) showed very strong correlation with conventional echocardiography (mean difference 0.33 mL, r2 = 0.956).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: