Key result
Multibeat analysis yields 94% concordance with thermodilution for trending cardiac index in cardiogenic shock.
Why the study?
The decision algorithm for managing patients in cardiogenic shock depends on cardiac index estimates, and minimally invasive methods like multibeat analysis may be an alternative to thermodilution.
Does multibeat analysis (CI-MBA) provide accurate cardiac index estimation compared to thermodilution (CI-TD) in patients with cardiogenic shock?
Observational (n=22)
Does multibeat analysis (CI-MBA) provide accurate cardiac index estimation compared to thermodilution (CI-TD) in patients with cardiogenic shock?
CI-MBA provides clinically acceptable trending ability for cardiac index in cardiogenic shock patients, though it is not fully interchangeable with thermodilution.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CI-MBA is not interchangeable with thermodilution for absolute values in cardiogenic shock; leaves open its role for trending when invasive monitoring is high-risk.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kee et al. (2023) conducted an observational in cardiogenic shock (n=22). Multibeat analysis cardiac index estimation (CI-MBA) vs. Thermodilution (CI-TD) was evaluated on Percentage error and concordance rate. Multibeat analysis for estimating cardiac index in cardiogenic shock showed a 40.0% percentage error and 94% concordance rate compared with thermodilution, indicating acceptable trending ability.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: