ArticleAnatolian journal of cardiology2023
Could Impedance Cardiography be a Non-Invasive Alternative Method of Measuring Cardiac Output in Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension?
Article in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impedance Cardiography Is a Potent Non-Invasive Method in Cardiac Output Measurement and Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Risk Assessment.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2025Article
- Impedance cardiography parameters reflecting left ventricular function are markers of pulmonary arterial hypertension.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary hypertension guidelines recommend invasive right heart catheterization for diagnosis and clinical follow-up. Our aim was to compare non-invasive impedance cardiography with invasive techniques for cardiac index measurements and mortality prediction in patients with pulmonary hypertension.
methodsBetween 2008 and 2018, 284 right heart catheterizations were performed for the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension in 215 patients with mean pulmonary artery pressure >25 mm Hg, and at least 2 methods used for cardiac output measurement were included in the study retrospectively. Patients were evaluated with Pearson's correlation in 3 groups: estimated Fick (eFick) method and thermodilution (group 1), eFick method and impedance cardiography (group 2), and thermodilution and impedance cardiography (group 3). We also compared the predictive power of cardiac index measured by different methods for 1-year overall mortality and hospitalizations.
resultsThere were strong and moderate positive correlations in groups 1 and 3, respectively (r = 0.634, P <.001, r = 0.534, P =.001), and the weakest correlation was in group 2 (r = 0.390, P =.001). The mean difference (bias) between eFick method versus impedance cardiography, impedance cardiography vs. thermodilution, and eFick method vs. thermodilution was 0.6 mL/min, 0.47 mL/min, and -0.2 mL/min respectively, but limits of agreement were wide. In both groups, cardiac index <2.5 L/min/m2 as measured by thermodilution significantly predicted 1-year mortality. Also, impedance cardiography was better than eFick method in predicting mortality (P =.02).
conclusionsOur single-center real-life data showed that for cardiac output and cardiac index measurements, impedance cardiography provides a moderate correlation with thermodilution and is fair with eFick method methods. Moreover, thermodilution appeared superior to both eFick method and impedance cardiography, while impedance cardiography was even better than eFick method in predicting 1-year adverse events, including total mortality and hospitalization, in patients with pulmonary hypertension.
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.