Why the study?
Is cardiac index a reliable parameter for assessing cardiac output in healthy pregnant women at term?
Observational (n=61)
Is cardiac index a reliable parameter for assessing cardiac output in healthy pregnant women at term?
Cardiac output, rather than cardiac index, should be the preferred parameter for hemodynamic measurements in pregnant women due to poor correlation between cardiac output and body surface area.
CI reliability in term pregnancy unproven; leaves open need for reference-standard validation before peripartum use.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to assess the reliability of the cardiac index (CI) in healthy pregnant women at term by investigating the correlation between the cardiac output (CO) and the body surface area (BSA) using a novel non-invasive cardiography technique (NICaS™). METHODS: Sixty-one healthy, normotensive women with a singleton pregnancy at term (≥37 gestational weeks) participated in this prospective observational study between 1/2015 and 6/2015 L. Each woman was assessed for CO by the NICaS™, an impedance device that non-invasively measures the CO and its derivatives. The NICaS™ demonstrated a very good correlation with the gold standard Swan-Ganz catheter. BSA was determined by the Dubois nomogram. The mean gestational age was 38.8 ± 0.7 weeks. The correlation between the CO and the BSA was poor (Pearson r = 0.254, p < .005). CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated poor correlation between the CO and the BSA in pregnant women, therefore, making the CI a non-reliable variable for assessing CO in pregnant women. We, therefore, suggest that the CO rather than the CI is the preferred parameter for hemodynamic measurements in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ram et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Healthy pregnancy at term (n=61). Cardiac output and body surface area correlation was evaluated on Correlation between cardiac output and body surface area (Pearson r = 0.254, p=<0.005).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: