Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31677135›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2020

Automated echocardiography for measuring and tracking cardiac output after cardiac surgery: a validation study.

Peter Juhl-Olsen, Søren H Smith, Anders M Grejs, Martin R S Jørgensen, Rajesh Bhavsar, Simon T Vistisen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03372863 (Validation of Automated Ultrasound Method for Measurement of Cardiac Output), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03372863 completednot on this map

Validation of Automated Ultrasound Method for Measurement of Cardiac Output: A Clinical Observational Study

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of AarhusRan2017 to 2018Enrolled50ConditionsCardiac Output, Low, Surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. What is new in hemodynamic monitoring and management?Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Peter Juhl-OlsenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus, Denmark. peter.juhl-olsen@clin.au.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1951-9091
Søren H SmithDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus, Denmark.
Anders M GrejsDepartment of Intensive Care, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus, Denmark.
Martin R S JørgensenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus, Denmark.
Rajesh BhavsarDepartment of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care, Hospital of Southern Jutland, Kresten Philipsens Vej 15, 6200, Aabenraa, Denmark.
Simon T VistisenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1297-1459
Aarhus University Hospital · DKAarhus University · DKSygehus Sønderjylland · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Echocardiographic measurement of cardiac output with automated software analyses of spectral curves in the left ventricular outflow tract has been introduced. This study aimed to assess the precision and accuracy of cardiac output measurements as well as the ability to track cardiac output changes over time comparing the automated echocardiographic method with the continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution cardiac output technique and the manual echocardiographic method in cardiac surgery patients. Cardiac output was measured simultaneously with all three methods in 50 patients on the morning after cardiac surgery. A second comparison was performed 90-180 min later. Precisions for each method were measured. Bias and limits of agreement (LoA) between methods were assessed and concordance- and polar plots were used for evaluating trending of cardiac output. When comparing the automated echocardiographic method with the thermodilution technique, the mean bias was 0.72 L/min with LoA - 1.89; 3.33 L/min corresponding to a percentage error of 46%. The concordance rate was 47%. The mean bias between the automated- and the manual echocardiographic methods was - 0.06 L/min (95% LoA - 2.33; 2.21 L/min, percentage error 42%). The concordance rate was 79%. The automated echocardiographic method did not meet the criteria for interchangeability with the thermodilution technique or the manual echocardiographic method. Trending ability was poor when compared to the continuous thermodilution technique, but moderate when compared to the manual echocardiographic method.Trial registry number: NCT03372863. Retrospectively registered December 14th 2017.

Indexed as

Cardiac Surgical ProceduresThermodilutionCardiac OutputEchocardiographyHumansPulmonary ArteryCardiac outputEchocardiographyHaemodynamicsThoracic surgeryUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID31677135
OpenAlexW2985901999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.