ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2026
Impact of pulsed Doppler sample volume position on fetal cardiac output calculation.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of sample volume position on fetal cardiac output (CO) measurements.
methodsFetuses with normal hearts were enrolled. Fetal CO was calculated using the pulsed Doppler method, with the velocity time integral (VTI) recorded at two distinct positions: the valve hinge level (Valve: V group) and just distal to the valve (Supra-valve: S group). Additionally, we acquired electronic spatio-temporal image correlation (eSTIC) volume data. Left-ventricular CO was calculated as the product of stroke volume and heart rate, with stroke volume derived from left-ventricular volume measurements using the virtual organ computer-aided analysis (VOCAL) technique on the three-dimensional eSTIC data (eSTIC group). We then compared the left-ventricular CO levels among the V, S, and eSTIC groups to assess their correlation.
resultsThe S group showed significantly larger VTI of the aortic valve (8.5 ± 2.3 vs. 9.3 ± 2.5 cm, V vs. S group). Similarly, the S group also had significantly larger VTI of the pulmonary valve (7.0 ± 1.9 vs. 8.2 ± 2.2 cm). Combined cardiac output (CCO) in the V group was 396 ± 136 mL/min/kg, and that in the S group was 450 ± 154 mL/kg/min, which also showed that the S group had a significantly larger CCO. Focusing on left ventricle CO, the V group was 140 ± 73 mL/kg/min, the S group was 157 ± 77 mL/kg/min, and the eSTIC group was 133 ± 69 mL/kg/min. This suggested that the V group's results were more similar to the eSTIC group's.
conclusionThis study suggests that CO measurements are significantly influenced by the sample volume position. Furthermore, placing the VTI sample volume on the valve hinge level appears to reflect CO more accurately.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41854925What 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.