Key result
Non-invasive electrical cardiometry showed acceptable agreement with esophageal Doppler for measuring cardiac output during major abdominal surgery, with no significant difference between methods.
Why the study?
The study aimed to correlate continuous hemodynamic monitoring between non-invasive electrical cardiometry and esophageal Doppler in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.
Does non-invasive electrical cardiometry correlate with esophageal Doppler for continuous cardiac output monitoring in adults undergoing major abdominal surgery?
Observational (n=35)
Does non-invasive electrical cardiometry correlate with esophageal Doppler for continuous cardiac output monitoring in adults undergoing major abdominal surgery?
p-value: p=non-significant
Non-invasive electrical cardiometry provides acceptable agreement with esophageal Doppler for continuous cardiac output monitoring during major abdominal surgery.
Supports non-invasive EC as potential alternative for CO monitoring in abdominal surgery; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm reliability versus ED.
Background Transesophageal Doppler (TED) is a minimally invasive monitor that allows continuous hemodynamic variables monitoring. Non-invasive electrical cardiometry (EC) and TED methods added an additional facility to monitor cardiac output (CO) continuously and guide fluid management. The aim of this study was to correlate hemodynamic monitoring between non-invasive EC and Esophageal Doppler (ED) in cases undergoing major abdominal surgery.Methods This prospective observational study was carried out on 35 adult cases, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II or III, undergoing major abdominal surgery. Esophageal Doppler and EC were attached to the same patient. Parameters measured were hemodynamic parameters.Results Comparison of CO with ICON and ED showed that the ICON mean value ranged from 5.6 to 6.2 l/min, and the ED mean value always ranged from 5.7 to 7.6 l/min with the non-significant difference between the two methods. The precision for the ICON ranged from 15.19 to 17.99% and the precision for ED ranged from 13.39 to 17.08%. At a 15% change in ICON, the ED values’ sensitivity was 72.6% and specificity was 30.9% with AUC 0.505.Conclusion The agreement between CO measured by EC and ED is acceptable. Both monitored trend changes and guided fluid administration in the operation theater. The EC is as accurate as ED in measuring hemodynamics during major abdominal surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdalla et al. (2023) conducted an observational in major abdominal surgery (n=35). Electrical cardiometry vs. Esophageal Doppler was evaluated on Cardiac output (CO) (p=non-significant). Non-invasive electrical cardiometry showed acceptable agreement with esophageal Doppler for measuring cardiac output during major abdominal surgery, with no significant difference between methods.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: