Why the study?
What is the reproducibility of cardiac output determinations by the dye-dilution method at rest and during exercise in normal subjects?
What is the reproducibility of cardiac output determinations by the dye-dilution method at rest and during exercise in normal subjects?
The dye-dilution method for measuring cardiac output shows a variation of 7% at rest, which increases to 11% during peak exercise when sampling the same arterial stream.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Greater variability at peak exercise warrants caution in interpretation; leaves open standardization of dye-dilution methods for research.
Reproducibility of cardiac output determinations by dye dilution at rest and during graded treadmill exercise has been assessed by means of simultaneous, rapidly repeated measurements with two Waters 250-A densitometers at both a single sampling site and from both arms. A total of 232 paired-dilution curves was recorded from 10 normal subjects with both densitometers sampling from the same radial artery, and 158 curves from 9 subjects, one densitometer sampling each radial artery simultaneously. Measurements were made with subjects recumbent and during walking varying from level to a 12° treadmill elevation. With both densitometers sampling the same arterial stream cardiac output variation from the two instruments progressively increased from 7% (0.562 liter/min) at rest to 11% (2.773 liter/min) at peak exercise as represented by a standard deviation of the difference related to mean cardiac output. When two arterial streams were being sampled for each injection, variation between instruments amounted to 9–12% of mean cardiac output. Significantly greater variation was observed in curves obtained within 1 min of each other from the same densitometer. measurement of cardiac output during exercise; cardiac output technique; variation in dye-dilution technique; bilateral cardiac output measurements; upright treadmill exercise Submitted on July 12, 1963
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hanson et al. (1964) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: