Observational studyPediatric cardiology2016
Validation of an Ultrasound Cardiac Output Monitor as a Bedside Tool for Pediatric Patients.
Observational study in Pediatric cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cardiac output measurements via echocardiography versus thermodilution: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Correlation Between Hemodynamic Parameters Measured by Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor and Serum Troponin I Levels in Pediatric Septic Shock Patients: A Prospective Observational Study.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2026Article
- Inferior vena cava-aortic ratio measurement as a promising modality in assessing intravascular volume in children with sepsis.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2024Article
- Agreement of cardiac index measurements between ultrasonic cardiac output monitor and transthoracic echocardiography in neonates.La Tunisie medicale · 2024Observational
- Measurement of Cardiac Output Using an Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor (USCOM) in Patients with Single-Ventricle Physiology.Pediatric cardiology · 2022Article
- Ultrasonic cardiac output monitor provides effective non-invasive bedside measurements of neonatal cardiac output.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2022Observational
- Hemodynamic monitoring and management of pediatric septic shock.Biomedical journal · 2022Review
- Ultrasound Cardiac Output Monitor (USCOM™) Measurements Prove Unreliable Compared to Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Adolescents with Cardiac Disease.Pediatric cardiology · 2021Article
- Electrocardiometry Fluid Responsiveness in Pediatric Septic Shock.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021Article
- Serum NT-Pro-BNP versus Noninvasive Bedside Inotropic Index in Paediatric Shock: A Contest of Myocardial Performance in Response to Fluid Loading.Critical care research and practice · 2021Article
- Minimal Change in Cardiac Index With Increasing PEEP in Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2019Article
- Noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring of septic shock in children.World journal of methodology · 2018Review
- Comparison of three non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring methods in critically ill children.PloS one · 2018Observational
- Race predictors and hemodynamic alteration after an ultra-trail marathon race.Open access journal of sports medicine · 2017Article
- [Application of ultrasonic cardiac output monitor in evaluation of cardiac function in children with severe pneumonia].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2016Article
- Reliability of the Ultrasound Cardiac Output Monitor for Pediatric Patients.Pediatric cardiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of our study was to determine the validity of cardiac output (CO) measurements taken with the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) by comparing to CO measured by pulmonary arterial catheter (PAC) thermodilution during cardiac catheterization. We enrolled thirty-one children (<18 years) undergoing cardiac catheterization in this double-blinded, prospective, observational study. The median CO measured by USCOM was 4.37 L/min (IQR 3.73, 5.60 L/min) compared to 4.28 L/min (IQR 3.52, 5.26 L/min) by PAC thermodilution. The bias (mean difference) between the two methods was 0.2 L/min, and the 95% limits of agreement were -1.2 to 1.6 L/min. The mean percentage error of CO between USCOM and PAC thermodilution was 11%. When excluding a sole outlier, the bias between the two measures decreased to 0.1 L/min (95% limits of agreement -0.6 to 0.9 L/min), and the percentage error was reduced to 8%. The median SVRI measured by USCOM was 22.0 Wood Units (IQR 17.0, 26.8 Wood Units) compared to 22.1 Wood Units (IQR 17.6, 27.4 Wood Units) by PAC thermodilution. Bias (mean difference) between the two methods was -0.6 Wood Units, and the 95% limits of agreement were -8.2 to 6.9 Wood Units. We found that the estimation of CO and by extension SVRI with USCOM is reliable against pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution in children with normal cardiac anatomy. Given the noninvasive nature of USCOM, speed of measurement, and relative ease of use, it may be useful as a bedside tool for pediatric patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26364291What 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.