ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2023
Agreement between cardiac output estimation by multi-beat analysis of arterial blood pressure waveforms and continuous thermodilution in post cardiac surgery intensive care unit patients.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement of minimally invasive pulse wave analysis with pulmonary artery and transpulmonary thermodilution cardiac output measurements in perioperative and intensive care medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of anaesthesia · 2026Pooled it
- A Novel Method for Cardiac Output and Vascular Parameters Estimation Using Peripheral Arterial Waveforms: Integrating Windkessel Model viaAnnals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Comparison of cardiac index values between bioimpedance and pulse contour analysis in patients undergoing cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Bias, trending ability and diagnostic performance of a non-calibrated multi-beat analysis continuous cardiac output monitor to identify fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- Agreement between cardiac output estimation with a wireless, wearable pulse decomposition analysis device and continuous thermodilution in post cardiac surgery intensive care unit patients.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2024Article
- Integrating Right Ventricular Pressure Waveform Analysis With Two-Point Volume Measurement for Quantification of Systolic and Diastolic Function: Experimental Validation and Clinical Application.Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2023Observational
- Intra-abdominal pressure monitoring in cardiac surgery: is this the canary in the coalmine for kidney injury?Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We sought to assess agreement of cardiac output estimation between continuous pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) guided thermodilution (CO-CTD) and a novel pulse wave analysis (PWA) method that performs an analysis of multiple beats of the arterial blood pressure waveform (CO-MBA) in post-operative cardiac surgery patients. PAC obtained CO-CTD measurements were compared with CO-MBA measurements from the Argos monitor (Retia Medical; Valhalla, NY, USA), in prospectively enrolled adult cardiac surgical intensive care unit patients. Agreement was assessed via Bland-Altman analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed on data segments identified as arrhythmia, or with low CO (less than 5 L/min). 927 hours of monitoring data from 79 patients was analyzed, of which 26 had arrhythmia. Mean CO-CTD was 5.29 ± 1.14 L/min (bias ± precision), whereas mean CO-MBA was 5.36 ± 1.33 L/min, (4.95 ± 0.80 L/min and 5.04 ± 1.07 L/min in the arrhythmia subgroup). Mean of differences was 0.04 ± 1.04 L/min with an error of 38.2%. In the arrhythmia subgroup, mean of differences was 0.14 ± 0.90 L/min with an error of 35.4%. In the low CO subgroup, mean of differences was 0.26 ± 0.89 L/min with an error of 40.4%. In adult patients after cardiac surgery, including those with low cardiac output and arrhythmia CO-MBA is not interchangeable with the continuous thermodilution method via a PAC, when using a 30% error threshold.
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.