Observational studyJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2019
A comparison of ventricular systolic function indices provided by VolumeView/EV1000™ and left ventricular ejection fraction by echocardiography among septic shock patients.
Observational study in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors of postoperative septic cardiomyopathy in perioperative sepsis patients.BMC anesthesiology · 2022Article
- Volumetric Monitoring and Extravascular Lung Water in Perioperative Setting and Critically Ill.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2021Article
- Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing end of year summary 2019: hemodynamic monitoring and management.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the cardiac function index (CFI) and global ejection fraction (GEF) obtained by VolumeView/EV1000™, with the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by echocardiography in septic shock patients. A prospective observational study was conducted in a medical intensive care unit of a tertiary, teaching university hospital. Thirty-two, mechanical-ventilated septic shock patients were included in this study. We simultaneously measured CFI and GEF with LVEF. The correlation of CFI, GEF along with LVEF and ability of CFI and GEF to predict LVEF ≥ 40, 50 and 60% were evaluated. There were 192 pairs of CFI, GEF and LVEF. CFI was significantly correlated with GEF (r = 0.82, P < 0.0001). A significant correlation was observed between CFI and LVEF (r = 0.56, P < 0.0001) and GEF and LVEF (r = 0.71, P < 0.0001). The CFI and GEF had a good predictive ability for estimating LVEF ≥ 40, 50 and 60%, with an area under receiving operating characteristic (AUC) 0.875-0.934. The CFI ≥ 3/min predicted LVEF ≥ 40% with sensitivity 95.1% and specificity 48.3%. The GEF ≥ 15%, estimated LVEF ≥ 40% with sensitivity 92.6% and specificity 69%. There were 40 thermodilution and LVEF measurements obtained before and after norepinephrine adjustment. Blood pressure as well as the cardiac index were significantly increased, whereas there were no changes in CFI, GEF and LVEF values. Conclusions: Both CFI and GEF obtained by VolumeView/EV1000™, correlated with LVEF, so as to provide a reliable estimation of LV systolic function in septic shock patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29740730What 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.