Purpose: Impedance Cardiography (ICG) with its drawbacks to reliably estimate cardiac output (CO) when compared to reference methods has led to the development of a novel technique called Electrical Cardiometry (EC). ...Purpose: Impedance Cardiography (ICG) with its drawbacks to reliably estimate cardiac output (CO) when compared to reference methods has led to the development of a novel technique called Electrical Cardiometry (EC). The purpose of this study was to compare EC-CO with the Continuous CO (CCO) derived from Pulmonary Artery Catheter (PAC). Methods: 60 patients scheduled to undergo coronary artery surgery necessitating the placement of PAC were studied in the operating room. Standard ECG electrodes were used for EC-CO measurements. Simultaneous CO measurement from EC and PAC was done at three predefined time points and were correlated. Results: A significant high correlation was found between the EC-CO and CCO at the three time points. Bland and Altman analysis revealed a bias of 0.08 L/min, a precision of 0.15 L/min, with a narrow limit of agreement (-0.13 to 0.28 L/min). The percentage error between the methods was 3.59%. Conclusion: The agreement between EC-CO and CCO is clinically acceptable and these two techniques can be used interchangeably. Mediastinal opening has no effect on the correlation between these two modalities.展开更多
文摘Purpose: Impedance Cardiography (ICG) with its drawbacks to reliably estimate cardiac output (CO) when compared to reference methods has led to the development of a novel technique called Electrical Cardiometry (EC). The purpose of this study was to compare EC-CO with the Continuous CO (CCO) derived from Pulmonary Artery Catheter (PAC). Methods: 60 patients scheduled to undergo coronary artery surgery necessitating the placement of PAC were studied in the operating room. Standard ECG electrodes were used for EC-CO measurements. Simultaneous CO measurement from EC and PAC was done at three predefined time points and were correlated. Results: A significant high correlation was found between the EC-CO and CCO at the three time points. Bland and Altman analysis revealed a bias of 0.08 L/min, a precision of 0.15 L/min, with a narrow limit of agreement (-0.13 to 0.28 L/min). The percentage error between the methods was 3.59%. Conclusion: The agreement between EC-CO and CCO is clinically acceptable and these two techniques can be used interchangeably. Mediastinal opening has no effect on the correlation between these two modalities.
