Key result
Electrical cardiometry matches invasive thermodilution for cardiac output monitoring with ~0.18 L/min bias during surgery.
Why the study?
The accuracy of noninvasive electrical cardiometry compared to invasive pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution for cardiac output monitoring during cardiac surgery was uncertain.
Does noninvasive Electrical Cardiometry provide comparable cardiac output measurements to invasive thermodilution in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting?
Comparison
Electrical cardiometry vs pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution
Design
Prospective observational clinical study
Follow-up
During cardiac surgery
Authors
Loading...
May support noninvasive cardiac output monitoring by electrical cardiometry in CABG; leaves open need for randomized trials to confirm agreement.
Observational (n=25)
No
Does noninvasive Electrical Cardiometry provide comparable cardiac output measurements to invasive thermodilution in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting?
Mean Difference: 0.18 (95% CI -1.25–0.89)
Absolute Event Rate: 4.21% vs 4.39%
Electrical cardiometry provides clinically acceptable, noninvasive cardiac output monitoring comparable to invasive thermodilution during cardiac surgery.
Rajput et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (n=25). Electrical Cardiometry (EC) vs. Thermodilution Cardiac Output (TDCO) via Pulmonary Artery Catheter was evaluated on Cardiac output measurement agreement (Bland-Altman analysis) (mean bias 0.18, 95% CI -1.25 - 0.89). Electrical cardiometry provided cardiac output measurements comparable to invasive thermodilution during cardiac surgery, demonstrating a mean bias of 0.18 L/min and limits of agreement of -1.25 to 0.89 L/min.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: