Key result
Noninvasive cardiac output measurement using the Task Force Monitor did not differ significantly from the Transonic System in hemodialysis patients (mean difference 0.4 L/min; p > 0.05).
Why the study?
Does the Task Force Monitor provide comparable cardiac output measurements to the Transonic system in maintenance hemodialysis patients?
Observational (n=12)
Does the Task Force Monitor provide comparable cardiac output measurements to the Transonic system in maintenance hemodialysis patients?
Mean Difference: 0.4
Absolute Event Rate: 5% vs 5.4%
p-value: p=> 0.05
The Task Force Monitor provides noninvasive cardiac output measurements comparable to the established Transonic system in hemodialysis patients, offering a viable tool for continuous hemodynamic assessment.
Supports noninvasive CO monitoring in hemodialysis; leaves open prospective outcome validation before practice change.
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients. The Transonic (TRS; Transonic Systems, Ithaca, NY) device is frequently used for determination of cardiac output (CO) by an indicator dilution technique. The Task Force Monitor (TFM; CN Systems, Graz, Austria) has gained attention as noninvasive tool for continuous beat-to-beat assessment of cardiovascular variables, including CO by impedance cardiography. Despite its use in cardiology and intensive care settings, the TFM has yet not been validated in dialysis patients. This study compares CO measurements in 12 MHD patients by TFM and TRS. Bland-Altman and regression analysis were used. CO was measured simultaneously by TRS and TFM. Average CO was 5.4 L/min by TRS and 5.0 L/min by TFM, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis revealed no significant systematic differences between the two methods (mean difference: 0.4 L/min; SD: 0.6; p > 0.05). Linear regression analysis showed significant correlation between both techniques (r = 0.802, p = 0.002). The SD of mean individual CO values was 1.1 L/min with TRS and 0.8 L/min with TFM, respectively.CO measured by TFM and TRS does not differ significantly, thus making the TFM an attractive noninvasive tool for the continuous beat-to-beat assessment of CO in MHD patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kitzler et al. (2007) conducted an observational in Maintenance hemodialysis (n=12). Task Force Monitor (TFM) vs. Transonic System (TRS) was evaluated on Cardiac output (CO) (MD 0.4, p=> 0.05). Noninvasive cardiac output measurement using the Task Force Monitor did not differ significantly from the Transonic System in hemodialysis patients (mean difference 0.4 L/min; p > 0.05).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: