Key result
Electrical bioimpedance cardiography shows wide scatter versus indirect Fick, placing ~73% of readings outside identity limits.
Why the study?
Automated non-invasive systems for cardiac output estimation require evaluation and comparison to determine their accuracy and reliability.
How does electrical bioimpedance cardiography compare to the indirect Fick technique for non-invasive measurement of cardiac output?
Population
19 randomly selected subjects with 103 simultaneous measurements at rest and exercise
Comparison
Electrical bioimpedance cardiography (BoMed NCCOM3) vs indirect Fick technique using carbon dioxide rebreathing (Gould 9000 IV)
Design
Cross-sectional study
Authors
Loading...
Wide scatter and poor exercise correlation limit reliability of impedance cardiography; leaves open need for invasive validation before clinical use.
Cross-Sectional (n=19)
How does electrical bioimpedance cardiography compare to the indirect Fick technique for non-invasive measurement of cardiac output?
Electrical bioimpedance and indirect Fick techniques for non-invasive cardiac output measurement show significant correlation but wide scatter, requiring further validation before clinical use.
Smith et al. (1988) reported a cross-sectional. Electrical bioimpedance cardiography (BoMed NCCOM3) vs. Indirect Fick technique using carbon dioxide rebreathing (Gould 9000 IV) was evaluated on Cardiac output measurement correlation and agreement. Electrical bioimpedance cardiography showed wide scatter compared to the indirect Fick method, with over 73% of cardiac output readings lying outside the +/- 20% limits of identity.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: