Authors: Frederik Trinkmann Manuel Berger Ursula Hoffmann Martin Borggrefe Jens J Kaden Joachim Saur
Publish Date: 2011/07/01
Volume: 100, Issue: 10, Pages: 935-
Abstract
When assessing the function of the cardiovascular system cardiac output CO is a substantial parameter For its determination numerous noninvasive techniques have been proposed in the recent years including inert gas rebreathing IGR and impedance cardiography ICG The aim of our study was to evaluate whether a novel ICG algorithm electrical velocimetry and IGR can be used interchangeably in the clinical settingThe mean CO was 50 ± 12 l/min range 26–86 l/min using IGR and 44 ± 11 l/min 17–74 l/min using ICG respectively Bland–Altman analysis revealed an acceptable agreement with a mean bias of 06 ± 12 l/min We found a high reproducibility with a mean bias of 02 ± 07 l/min for IGR and 00 ± 03 l/min for ICG p 0001 respectively There was a statistically significant difference for unphysiological circulatory conditions represented by values of 26–41 l/min and 56–86 l/minBoth noninvasive techniques are associated with low operating costs and require only a few expendable items for the rapid determination of cardiac function We found an acceptable agreement between IGR and ICG as well as a high reproducibility which was statistically significant higher for ICG For cardiac output states exceeding the physiological range we found a statistically significant difference Consequently values of cardiac function determined by either method should not be used interchangeably in the clinical setting
Keywords: