ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2016
Comparison of electrical velocimetry and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for the non-invasive determination of cardiac output.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 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
- Ensuring safety of exercise training through non-invasive measurement of cardiac function: A pilot study in adults.Physiological reports · 2026Article
- Comparison of noninvasive electrical cardiometry and transpulmonary thermodilution for cardiac output measurement in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Observational
- Can bioimpedance cardiography assess hemodynamic response to passive leg raising in critically ill patients: A STROBE-compliant study.Medicine · 2020Observational
- Use of a Non-invasive Cardiac Output Measurement in a Patient with Low-output Dilated Cardiomyopathy.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2020Article
- Effect of hemodialysis on impedance cardiography (electrical velocimetry) parameters in children.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2020Observational
- 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 2016 end of year summary: cardiovascular and hemodynamic monitoring.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A novel algorithm of impedance cardiography referred to as electrical velocimetry (EV) has been introduced for non-invasive determination of cardiac output (CO). Previous validation studies yielded diverging results and no comparison with the non-invasive gold standard cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has been performed. We therefore aimed to prospectively assess the accuracy and reproducibility of EV compared to CMR. 152 consecutive stable patients undergoing CMR were enrolled. EV measurements were taken twice before or after CMR in supine position and averaged over 20 s (AESCULON(®), Osypka Medical, Berlin, Germany). Bland-Altman analysis showed insufficient agreement of EV and CMR with a mean bias of 1.2 ± 1.4 l/min (bias 23 ± 26 %, percentage error 51 %). Reproducibility was high with 0.0 ± 0.3 l/min (bias 0 ± 8 %, percentage error 15 %). Outlier analysis revealed gender, height, CO and stroke volume (SV) by CMR as independent predictors for larger variation. Stratification of COCMR in quintiles demonstrated a good agreement for low values (<4.4 l/min) with bias increasing significantly with quintile as high as 3.1 ± 1.1 l/min (p < 0.001). Reproducibility was not affected (p = 0.71). Subgroup analysis in patients with arrhythmias (p = 0.19), changes in thoracic fluid content (p = 0.51) or left heart failure (p = 0.47) could not detect significant differences in accuracy. EV showed insufficient agreement with CMR and good reproducibility. Gender, height and increasing CO and SV were associated with increased bias while not affecting reproducibility. Therefore, absolute values should not be used interchangeably in clinical routine. EV yet may find its place for clinical application with further investigation on its trending ability pending.
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.