Observational studyJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2019
Cardiac output and stroke volume variation measured by the pulse wave transit time method: a comparison with an arterial pressure-based cardiac output system.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determination of the cut-off value for estimated stroke volume variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Observational
- Reliability and benefit of estimated continuous cardiac output measurement using shunt-side SpOTherapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy · 2025Observational
- Non-invasive hemodynamic diagnosis based on non-linear pulse wave theory applied to four limbs.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Comparison of parameter types for the calibration of noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring of patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery in the prone position.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2023Article
- Noninvasive cardiac output measurements are inaccurate in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2022Article
- Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing end of year summary 2019: hemodynamic monitoring and management.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020Review
- Evaluation of pulse wave transit time analysis for non-invasive cardiac output quantification in pregnant patients.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hemodynamic monitoring is mandatory for perioperative management of cardiac surgery. Recently, the estimated continuous cardiac output (esCCO) system, which can monitor cardiac output (CO) non-invasively based on pulse wave transit time, has been developed. Patients who underwent cardiovascular surgeries with hemodynamics monitoring using arterial pressure-based CO (APCO) were eligible for this study. Hemodynamic monitoring using esCCO and APCO was initiated immediately after intensive care unit admission. CO values measured using esCCO and APCO were collected every 6 h, and stroke volume variation (SVV) data were obtained every hour while patients were mechanically ventilated. Correlation and Bland-Altman analyses were used to compare APCO and esCCO. Welch's analysis of variance, and four-quadrant plot and polar plot analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of time course, and the trending ability. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Twenty-one patients were included in this study, and 143 and 146 datasets for CO and SVV measurement were analyzed. Regarding CO, the correlation analysis showed that APCO and esCCO were significantly correlated (r = 0.62), and the bias ± precision and percentage error were 0.14 ± 1.94 (L/min) and 69%, respectively. The correlation coefficient, bias ± precision, and percentage error for SVV evaluation were 0.4, - 3.79 ± 5.08, and 99%, respectively. The time course had no effects on the biases between CO and SVV. Concordance rates were 80.3 and 75.7% respectively. While CO measurement with esCCO can be a reliable monitor after cardiovascular surgeries, SVV measurement with esCCO may require further improvement.
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.