ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2025
Electrical cardiometry for non-invasive cardiac output monitoring: a method comparison study in patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
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. It is linked to trial NCT07109206 (Cardio-circulatory and Respiratory Monitoring for Prediction of Outcome in Mechanically Ventilated Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Cardio-circulatory and Respiratory Monitoring for Prediction of Outcome in Mechanically Ventilated Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electrical Cardiometry as a Novel Tool for Assessing Systemic Vascular Resistance and Cardiac Function in Obstructive Sleep Apnea.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Wearable ECG-PPG Deep Learning Model for Cardiac Index-Based Noninvasive Cardiac Output Estimation in Cardiac Surgery Patients.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effects of Remote Ischemic Conditioning on Cardiovascular Responsiveness in Healthy Individuals.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac output can be estimated non-invasively by electrical cardiometry with the ICON® monitor (Osypka Medical GmbH, Berlin, Germany). Conflicting results have been reported regarding the cardiac output measurement performance of electrical cardiometry. In this prospective method comparison study, we compared cardiac output measured using electrical cardiometry (EC-CO; test method) with cardiac output measured using intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution (PATD-CO; reference method) in patients after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. We calculated the mean of the differences with 95%-limits of agreement (95%-LOA) and their corresponding 95%-confidence intervals (95%-CI) using Bland-Altman analysis and calculated the percentage error. We also analyzed trending using four-quadrant plot analysis. We analyzed 157 paired cardiac output measurements of 41 patients. Mean ± standard deviation PATD-CO was 5.1 ± 1.3 L/min and mean EC-CO was 5.3 ± 1.3 L/min. The mean of the differences ± SD between PATD-CO and EC-CO was -0.2 (95%-CI -0.5 to 0.2) ± 1.2 L/min with a lower 95%-LOA of -2.6 (95%-CI -3.1 to -2.0) L/min and an upper 95%-LOA of 2.3 (95%-CI 1.6 to 2.9) L/min. The percentage error was 47% (95%-CI, 37 to 56%). The concordance rate for cardiac output changes was 48%. In this study, the agreement between EC-CO and PATD-CO was not clinically acceptable in patients after CABG surgery. The trending ability of EC-CO was poor.
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.