ArticleBJA open2026
Noninvasive cardiac index estimation under general anaesthesia: comparison between the VenArt® device and transthoracic echocardiography.
Article in BJA open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: VenArt® is a novel noninvasive cardiac output monitoring device which provides beat-by-beat Fick principle-based measurements of stroke volume and cardiac output. The study aim was to determine the accuracy of this device by comparing it with cardiac output measurements using transthoracic echocardiography in patients undergoing anaesthesia. Methods: This prospective observational study included 55 women (ASA physical status classification I-III) undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological procedures. Cardiac output was assessed at five timepoints using the VenArt® device and transthoracic echocardiography. Primary endpoint was the agreement between the two methods regarding cardiac index, evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis to determine bias, precision, mean percentage error, and limits of agreement. Secondary endpoint was the ability of the device to track changes in cardiac index over time compared with echocardiography. Results: We analysed 273 pairs of cardiac index values from 55 patients. Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of 0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0-0.05) L min Conclusions: The VenArt® device showed negligible bias and acceptable differences. Trending ability was favourable, with clinically acceptable agreement and high concordance in tracking haemodynamic changes. Clinical trial registration: ISRCTN92565809.
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.