ArticleAnesthesiology2019
Extracorporeal Arteriovenous Ultrasound Measurement of Cardiac Output in Small Children.
Article in Anesthesiology, 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.
- Determination of cardiac output, shunt-fraction, and active circulatory volume in children with hypoplastic left heart syndrome after the Norwood procedure with RV to PA-shunt.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Continuous cardiac output measured with a Swan-Ganz catheter reacts too slowly in animal experiments with sudden circulatory failure.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2022Article
- Indexing haemodynamic variables in young children.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2021Observational
- Technological Assessment and Objective Evaluation of Minimally Invasive and Noninvasive Cardiac Output Monitoring Systems.Anesthesiology · 2020Review
- Indirect Calorimetry Overestimates Oxygen Consumption in Young Children: Caution is Advised Using Direct Fick Method as a Reference Method in Cardiac Output Comparison Studies.Pediatric cardiology · 2020Observational
- Fluid responsiveness in the pediatric population.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2019Review
- Babies and Children at Last: Pediatric Cardiac Output Monitoring in the Twenty-first Century.Anesthesiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTechnology for cardiac output (CO) and blood volume measurements has been developed based on blood dilution with a small bolus of physiologic body temperature saline, which, after transcardiopulmonary mixing, is detected with ultrasound sensors attached to an extracorporeal arteriovenous loop using existing central venous and peripheral arterial catheters. This study aims to compare the precision and agreement of this technology to measure cardiac output with a reference method, a perivascular flow probe placed around the aorta, in young children. The null hypothesis is that the methods are equivalent in precision, and there is no bias in the cardiac output measurements.
methodsForty-three children scheduled for cardiac surgery were included in this prospective single-center comparison study. After corrective cardiac surgery, five consecutive repeated cardiac output measurements were performed simultaneously by both methods.
resultsA total of 215 cardiac output measurements were compared in 43 children. The mean age of the children was 354 days (range, 30 to 1,303 days), and the mean weight was 7.1 kg (range, 2.7 to 13.6 kg). The precision assessed as two times the coefficient of error was 3.6% for the ultrasound method and 5.0% for the flow probe. Bias (mean COultrasound 1.28 l/min - mean COflow probe 1.20 l/min) was 0.08 l/min, limits of agreement was ±0.32 l/min, and the percentage error was 26.6%.
conclusionsThe technology to measure cardiac output with ultrasound detection of blood dilution after a bolus injection of saline yields comparable precision as cardiac output measurements by a periaortic flow probe. The difference in accuracy in the measured cardiac output between the methods can be explained by the coronary blood flow, which is excluded in the cardiac output measurements by the periaortic flow probe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30907763What 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.