Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2004 Apr;18(2):185-9.
doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2004.01.025.

Comparison of esophageal Doppler, pulse contour analysis, and real-time pulmonary artery thermodilution for the continuous measurement of cardiac output

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Comparison of esophageal Doppler, pulse contour analysis, and real-time pulmonary artery thermodilution for the continuous measurement of cardiac output

Berthold Bein et al. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2004 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: Continuous measurement of cardiac output (CCO) is of great importance in the critically ill. However, pulmonary artery thermodilution has been questioned for possible complications associated with right heart catheterization. Furthermore, measurements are delayed in the continuous mode during rapid hemodynamic changes. A new pulmonary artery catheter CCO device (Aortech, Bellshill, Scotland) enabling real-time update of cardiac output was compared with 2 different, less-invasive methods of CCO determination, esophageal Doppler and pulse contour analysis.

Design: Prospective, observational study.

Setting: University hospital, single institution.

Participants: Patients scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: CCO measurements were analyzed using a Bland-Altman plot. Bias between CCO and pulse contour cardiac output (PCCO), and Doppler-derived cardiac output (UCCO) was (mean +/- 1 SD) -0.71 +/- 1 L/min versus -0.15 +/- 1.09 L/min, and between UCCO and PCCO -0.58 +/- 1.06 L/min. Bias was not significantly different among methods, nor were comparative values before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: Agreement between the CCO method and both less-invasive measurements was clinically acceptable. There were no adverse events associated with the use of either device.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources