Key result
Bioreactance correlates poorly with thermodilution for measuring cardiac output in critically ill patients.
Why the study?
Minimally invasive cardiac output measurement devices are increasingly used, but the accuracy of the bioreactance technique in critically ill patients is uncertain.
Does the bioreactance technique provide comparable cardiac output measurements to semi-continuous thermodilution in critically ill patients?
Does the bioreactance technique provide comparable cardiac output measurements to semi-continuous thermodilution in critically ill patients?
Effect estimate: r = 0.145
The bioreactance technique for non-invasive cardiac output monitoring showed poor correlation with standard thermodilution in critically ill patients, indicating caution for its clinical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Urges caution against bioreactance for cardiac output assessment in ICU; leaves open prospective validation of non-invasive alternatives.
Fagnoul et al. (2012) conducted a letter in Critically ill (n=11). Bioreactance technique (NICOM system) vs. Semi-continuous thermodilution (pulmonary artery catheter) was evaluated on Correlation between bioreactance and thermodilution cardiac output measurements (r = 0.145). The bioreactance technique showed poor correlation (r=0.145) and wide limits of agreement compared to semi-continuous thermodilution for measuring cardiac output in critically ill patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: