ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2011
A comparative evaluation of electrical velocimetry and inert gas rebreathing for the non-invasive assessment of cardiac output.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy and precision of non-invasive cardiac output monitoring by electrical cardiometry: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020Pooled it
- Haemodynamic Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation in Outpatients with Chronic Heart Failure.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2022Observational
- Non-invasive measurement of hemodynamic response to postural stress using inert gas rebreathing.Biomedical reports · 2019Article
- Biological variation of extracellular matrix biomarkers in patients with stable chronic heart failure.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2017Observational
- Comparison of electrical velocimetry and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for the non-invasive determination of cardiac output.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2016Article
- Biological variation of the cardiac index in patients with stable chronic heart failure: inert gas rebreathing compared with impedance cardiography.ESC heart failure · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen assessing the function of the cardiovascular system, cardiac output (CO) is a substantial parameter. For its determination, numerous non-invasive techniques have been proposed in the recent years including inert gas rebreathing (IGR) and impedance cardiography (ICG). The aim of our study was to evaluate whether a novel ICG algorithm (electrical velocimetry) and IGR can be used interchangeably in the clinical setting.
methodsA total of 120 consecutive stable patients were included resulting in two pairs of repeated non-invasive cardiac output measurements.
resultsThe mean CO was 5.0 ± 1.2 l/min (range 2.6-8.6 l/min) using IGR and 4.4 ± 1.1 l/min (1.7-7.4 l/min) using ICG, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis revealed an acceptable agreement with a mean bias of 0.6 ± 1.2 l/min. We found a high reproducibility with a mean bias of 0.2 ± 0.7 l/min for IGR and 0.0 ± 0.3 l/min for ICG (p < 0.001), respectively. There was a statistically significant difference for unphysiological circulatory conditions represented by values of 2.6-4.1 l/min and 5.6-8.6 l/min.
conclusionsBoth non-invasive techniques are associated with low operating costs and require only a few expendable items for the rapid determination of cardiac function. We found an acceptable agreement between IGR and ICG as well as a high reproducibility, which was statistically significant higher for ICG. For cardiac output states exceeding the physiological range, we found a statistically significant difference. Consequently, values of cardiac function determined by either method should not be used interchangeably in the clinical setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.