Key result
Transesophageal Doppler and transthoracic impedance fail to reliably estimate cardiac output compared to thermodilution.
Why the study?
The utility and reliability of noninvasive cardiac output measurement methods compared to thermodilution in anesthetized patients were uncertain.
Do transesophageal Doppler and transthoracic impedance accurately measure and track cardiac output compared to pulmonary artery thermodilution in anesthetized patients?
Comparison
Transesophageal Doppler and transthoracic impedance vs pulmonary artery thermodilution
Design
Observational simultaneous intraoperative measurement study
Follow-up
Intraoperative
Authors
Loading...
Caution advised against clinical use of these methods; leaves open their validity pending higher-level validation studies.
Observational (n=9)
Do transesophageal Doppler and transthoracic impedance accurately measure and track cardiac output compared to pulmonary artery thermodilution in anesthetized patients?
Effect estimate: r = 0.43 (impedance) and r = 0.68 (Doppler)
Transesophageal Doppler and transthoracic impedance are not reliable alternatives to pulmonary artery thermodilution for estimating or tracking cardiac output in anesthetized patients.
Siegel et al. (1988) conducted an observational in Anesthetized patients (n=9). Transesophageal Doppler and transthoracic impedance vs. Pulmonary artery thermodilution was evaluated on Correlation of noninvasive cardiac output measurements with thermodilution (r = 0.43 (impedance) and r = 0.68 (Doppler)). Transesophageal Doppler and transthoracic impedance correlated poorly with thermodilution (r=0.68 and r=0.43, respectively) and failed to reliably estimate cardiac output or track trends.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: