Key result
Continuous wave Doppler measurement of cardiac output significantly underestimated values compared to cardiac magnetic resonance (4.7 vs 5.3 L/min, P=0.004), with a bias of 0.6+/-1.1 L/min.
Why the study?
Does USCOM (continuous wave Doppler) accurately and reproducibly measure cardiac output compared to cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients?
Observational (n=56)
Does USCOM (continuous wave Doppler) accurately and reproducibly measure cardiac output compared to cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients?
Mean Difference: 0.6
Absolute Event Rate: 4.7% vs 5.3%
p-value: p=.004
The USCOM continuous wave Doppler device provides highly reproducible but slightly underestimated cardiac output measurements compared to CMR, suggesting utility for monitoring intraindividual hemodynamic changes.
Should not yet alter absolute CO assessment in practice; leaves open utility for serial trend monitoring pending validation.
BACKGROUND: USCOM, a novel continuous wave Doppler (CWD) device, has been introduced for noninvasive determination of cardiac output (CO). The present study aimed to compare the accuracy and reproducibility of the new device, using cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) as the noninvasive gold standard. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CO of 56 consecutive patients was prospectively determined by CWD either before or after CMR imaging. The CWD probe was placed in the suprasternal or supraclavicular notch aiming at the aortic valve. Valid CWD signals could be obtained in 45 patients yielding a CO of 5.3+/-1.1 L/min (range, 3.0-7.5 L/min) by CMR and 4.7+/-1.1 L/min by CWD (2.5-8.0 L/min, P = .004), respectively. CWD measurements showed an acceptable agreement with CMR (bias: 0.6+/-1.1 L/min) and a high reproducibility (bias: 0.1+/-0.4 L/min). Higher CO and body mass index (BMI) were identified as sources of inaccuracy in univariate analysis. By multivariate analysis, only CO(CMR) was found to be independently associated with larger variation. Estimated diameters of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), a prerequisite for CO measurement by CWD, correlated only weakly with those measured by CMR. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous wave Doppler is a feasible technique for measuring cardiac function. Although the overall agreement with CMR was acceptable, CWD showed a trend to underestimate CO. The estimated LVOT diameter by CWD is likely to be an important source of error. Nevertheless, the CWD device could be of clinical use especially for detection of intraindividual hemodynamic changes since a high reproducibility could be demonstrated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trinkmann et al. (2009) reported an observational. Continuous wave Doppler (USCOM) vs. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) was evaluated on Cardiac output (CO) (bias 0.6, p=.004). Continuous wave Doppler measurement of cardiac output significantly underestimated values compared to cardiac magnetic resonance (4.7 vs 5.3 L/min, P=0.004), with a bias of 0.6+/-1.1 L/min.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: