ArticlePulmonary circulation2025
Differences in Direct Fick and Thermodilution Measurements of Cardiac Output: Impact on Pulmonary Hypertension Classification.
Article in Pulmonary circulation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Right heart catheterization blended training program: quality improvement and educational outcomes.ATS scholar · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Direct Fick (DF) and bolus thermodilution (TD) are endorsed by pulmonary hypertension (PH) guidelines to measure cardiac output. In contemporary practice, agreement between methods is unknown, as are the diagnostic consequences of disagreement. We sought to evaluate the frequency and degree of disagreements between cardiac output measurement techniques and assess their impact on the hemodynamic assessment of PH. This was a single-center study that included 182 patients who had cardiac output concurrently measured by DF and TD. Oxygen consumption was measured by indirect calorimetry. Agreement between DF and bolus TD cardiac output was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis. The median DF and TD cardiac outputs were 5.42 L/min (interquartile range [IQR] 3.90-7.41) and 4.10 L/min (IQR 3.47-5.10), respectively. Significant disagreement was observed with DF yielding higher cardiac output results than TD. Mean error was proportional to cardiac output (-3.75% at 3 L/min to +44.5% at 7 L/min), and limits of agreement were wide. Disagreement was increased by 19.2% in the presence of least moderate tricuspid regurgitation and by 16.0% in patients with atrial fibrillation. Among 152 patients with PH, hemodynamic classification discordance occurred in 18 (11.8%) patients. Disagreement between DF and TD was observed, which resulted in a discrepant hemodynamic classification in approximately 12% of patients. These techniques should, therefore, not be used interchangeably for serial surveillance, and without a clinical gold standard, a rationale exists for utilizing both methods concurrently in certain clinical situations.
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.