Key result
USCOM correlates strongly with echocardiography for stroke volume but shows significant bias limiting interchangeability.
Why the study?
Whether echocardiography and Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor (USCOM) can be used interchangeably for hemodynamic assessment in pediatric patients remains unclear.
Does Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor (USCOM) agree with echocardiography for hemodynamic assessment in pediatric patients?
Cross-Sectional (n=44)
Does Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor (USCOM) agree with echocardiography for hemodynamic assessment in pediatric patients?
Effect estimate: r = 0.97 for stroke volume
p-value: p=<0.001
Echocardiography and USCOM should not be used interchangeably for quantitative hemodynamic monitoring in pediatric patients due to clinically meaningful systematic bias and proportional error.
USCOM and echocardiography cannot be used interchangeably in pediatric hemodynamics; leaves open which method better reflects true values.
Background Echocardiography is widely used for non‐invasive measurements of stroke volume and cardiac output, while Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor (USCOM) offers an alternative Doppler‐based approach. Whether these two modalities can be used interchangeably in clinical practice remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the correlation and agreement between echocardiography and USCOM for hemodynamic assessment. Methods A total of 44 pediatric patients underwent hemodynamic assessment using echocardiography and sequential USCOM measurement during the same evaluation. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess the relationship between methods. Agreement was evaluated using Bland‐Altman analysis. Results Strong correlations were found for stroke volume (SV; r = 0.97), cardiac output (CO; r = 0.95), cardiac index (CI; r = 0.91), stroke volume index (SVI; r = 0.90), and aortic valve (AV) diameter ( r = 0.91; p < 0.001), with a moderate correlation for left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) velocity ( r = 0.64, p < 0.001). Bland‐Altman analysis revealed echocardiography produced lower values of all parameters compared to USCOM. Significant proportional bias was identified for SV, SVI, CO, and CI (all p ≤ 0.006), indicating that two methods increased disagreement with higher measured values. AV diameter and LVOT velocity showed no significant proportional bias and narrower limits of agreement. Conclusions Although echocardiography and USCOM correlate strongly for hemodynamic parameters, clinically meaningful systematic bias and proportional error limit their interchangeability for volumetric flow measurements. These devices should not be used interchangeably for quantitative hemodynamic monitoring, particularly in high‐output states.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sethasathien et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in pediatric patients requiring hemodynamic assessment (n=44). Echocardiography vs. Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor (USCOM) was evaluated on Correlation and agreement for hemodynamic parameters including stroke volume and cardiac output (r = 0.97 for stroke volume, p=<0.001). Echocardiography and USCOM correlated strongly for stroke volume (r=0.97), but significant proportional bias (p≤0.006) limits their interchangeability for volumetric flow measurements.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: