Key result
An implantable haemodynamic monitoring device provided semi-invasive cardiac output measurements that strongly correlated with invasive techniques over 11 months (r2 = 0.91 at 6-11 months).
Why the study?
Does an implantable haemodynamic monitoring device accurately measure cardiac output compared to invasive techniques in patients with chronic heart failure or pulmonary disease?
Population
5 patients (4 with chronic heart failure and 1 with chronic pulmonary disease)
Comparison
Implantation of a right ventricular mixed venous… vs Invasive technique
Design
Case_series
Follow-up
11 months
Authors
Loading...
Supports feasibility in one case; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
Observational (n=5)
Does an implantable haemodynamic monitoring device accurately measure cardiac output compared to invasive techniques in patients with chronic heart failure or pulmonary disease?
Effect estimate: r2 = 0.91 at 6-11 months
Repeated semi-invasive cardiac output measurements using an implanted haemodynamic monitoring system are feasible and correlate strongly with invasive techniques over 11 months.
Ohlsson et al. (1996) conducted an observational in Chronic heart failure and chronic pulmonary disease (n=5). Implantable haemodynamic monitoring device vs. Invasive technique (pulmonary artery blood samples) was evaluated on Correlation of biosensor-derived oxygen saturation with pulmonary artery blood samples (r2 = 0.91 at 6-11 months). An implantable haemodynamic monitoring device provided semi-invasive cardiac output measurements that strongly correlated with invasive techniques over 11 months (r2 = 0.91 at 6-11 months).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: