ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
Feasibility of estimating cardiac indices using cardiac surgery anesthesia records in a multicenter cohort.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiac index (CI) is a key physiologic indicator correlated with end-organ perfusion in cardiac surgical patients, yet it is not routinely measured in all cases. This study evaluated the accuracy of estimating CI using routinely available physiologic monitor data, adjusted for relevant patient, physiologic, and procedural factors documented in perioperative anesthesia records. We analyzed anesthesia records from adult cardiac surgical patients with thermodilution-based CI measurements across seven US hospitals from 2014 to 2022. Four published formulas-based on intraoperative blood pressure and heart rate-were used to estimate CI in generalized linear models, with adjustment for perioperative patient and procedure characteristics. Bland-Altman analysis compared adjusted CI estimates to reference thermodilution CI values. The ability of each estimator to classify patients with low CI (< 2.2 L/min/m²) was assessed for concordance. In a cohort of 5,989 patients, the median (IQR = interquartile range) thermodilution-based CIs were 2.1 (1.8-2.6) and 2.4 (2.0-2.9) L/min/m² before and after cardiopulmonary bypass, respectively. The best-performing formula, Liljestrand and Zander, achieved mean absolute errors of 0.45 and 0.47 L/min/m² before and after bypass, respectively. However, its reliability in classifying low CI was limited (Cohen's kappa = 0.26 pre-bypass, 0.20 post-bypass). Routinely collected physiologic and patient data can be used to generate population-level cardiac index estimates in adult cardiac surgery patients when appropriately adjusted, though individual-level discrimination of low CI is limited. These findings inform future large-scale perioperative hemodynamic research.
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.