ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2025
Small changes in the transducer position cause a systematic change in cardiac output readings: implications for clinical practice.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2025. 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.
- Fourth Generation FloTrac Software Pulse Contour Analysis for Measuring and Trending Cardiac Output: A Method Comparison Study.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- AI for the hemodynamic assessment of critically ill and surgical patients: focus on clinical applications.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To systematically evaluate the effect of small changes in transducer position on key hemodynamic variables including CO generated by 4th generation FloTrac software. After cardiac surgery, cardiac output, mean arterial pressure, systemic vascular resistance, and stroke volume variation were measured with 4 generation Flotrac software. The transducer position was randomly placed at the midaxillary plane, 4 cm higher than the midaxillary plane or 4 cm lower than the midaxillary plane. Averages of three measurements were used. Data was available from 20 patients. Cardiac output increased from 4.59 L/min (± 0.92) to 4.78 L/min (± 0.99) with the transducer position at the midaxillary plane to 4 cm higher than the midaxillary plane, and cardiac output decreased to 4.43 L/min (± 0.90) with the transducer 4 cm lower than midaxillary plane (P < 0.001). On the relative scale, CO increased 4.1% (95% CI 3.1-5.0) when comparing the higher transducer level with the midaxillary plane position, and CO decreased 3.4% (95% CI 2.4-4.4) when comparing the midaxillary plane position with the lower transducer level, correspondiong to changes in CO of ≈ 1% per 1 cm change in transducer position. Mean arterial pressure and systemic vascular resistance both changed significantly with transducer position (both P < 0.001), whereas no statistically or clinically significant effect was seen on stroke volume variation (P = 0.98). A four-centimeter change in vertical transducer position induced clinically significant changes in cardiac output measurements by 4th generation FloTrac software. Definitions of optimal cardiac output in goal-directed therapy algorithms require meticulous transducer adjustment and can only be used in the reference patient position.
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.