ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2015
Validation of stroke volume and cardiac output by electrical interrogation of the brachial artery in normals: assessment of strengths, limitations, and sources of error.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Meta-analyses on measurement precision of non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring technologies in adults].Der Anaesthesist · 2018Pooled it
- Robust Arm Impedocardiography Signal Quality Enhancement Using Recursive Signal Averaging and Multi-Stage Wavelet Denoising Methods for Long-Term Cardiac Contractility Monitoring Armbands.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Effect of patent ductus arteriosus and patent foramen ovale on left ventricular stroke volume measurement by electrical velocimetry in comparison to transthoracic echocardiography in neonates.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2017Observational
- Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2015 end of year summary: cardiovascular and hemodynamic monitoring.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this study is to validate a new, continuous, noninvasive stroke volume (SV) method, known as transbrachial electrical bioimpedance velocimetry (TBEV). TBEV SV was compared to SV obtained by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) in normal humans devoid of clinically apparent heart disease. Thirty-two (32) volunteers were enrolled in the study. Each subject was evaluated by echocardiography to assure that no aortic or mitral valve disease was present. Subsequently, each subject underwent electrical interrogation of the brachial artery by means of a high frequency, low amplitude alternating current. A first TBEV SV estimate was obtained. Immediately after the initial TBEV study, subjects underwent cMRI, using steady-state precession imaging to obtain a volumetric estimate of SV. Following cMRI, the TBEV SV study was repeated. Comparing the cMRI-derived SV to that of TBEV, the two TBEV estimates were averaged and compared to the cMRI standard. CO was computed as the product of SV and heart rate. Statistical methods consisted of Bland-Altman and linear regression analysis. TBEV SV and CO estimates were obtained in 30 of the 32 subjects enrolled. Bland-Altman analysis of pre- and post-cMRI TBEV SV showed a mean bias of 2.87 % (2.05 mL), precision of 13.59% (11.99 mL) and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) of +29.51% (25.55 mL) and -23.77% (-21.45 mL). Regression analysis for pre- and post-cMRI TBEV SV values yielded y = 0.76x + 25.1 and r(2) = 0.71 (r = 0.84). Bland-Altman analysis comparing cMRI SV with averaged TBEV SV showed a mean bias of -1.56% (-1.53 mL), precision of 13.47% (12.84 mL), 95% LOA of +24.85% (+23.64 mL) and -27.97% (-26.7 mL) and percent error = 26.2 %. For correlation analysis, the regression equation was y = 0.82x + 19.1 and correlation coefficient r(2) = 0.61 (r = 0.78). Bland-Altman analysis of averaged pre- and post-cMRI TBEV CO versus cMRI CO yielded a mean bias of 5.01% (0.32 L min(-1)), precision of 12.85% (0.77 L min(-1)), 95% LOA of +30.20 % (+0.1.83 L min(-1)) and -20.7% (-1.19 L min(-1)) and percent error = 24.8%. Regression analysis yielded y = 0.92x + 0.78, correlation coefficient r(2) = 0.74 (r = 0.86). TBEV is a novel, noninvasive method, which provides satisfactory estimates of SV and CO in normal humans.
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.