Background Cardiac output (CO) and stroke volume (SV) monitoring are cornerstones of hemodynamic management in patients at risk of shock. The multi-beat analysis (MBA) method provides continuous estimates of CO and SV by analysis of a patient’s arterial blood pressure waveform. In this study we assessed the agreement of CO and SV between 2D echocardiography (CO-ECHO and SV-ECHO) and the multi-beat analysis (MBA) method via the Argos monitor (CO-MON and SV-MON).Methods Fifty patients with a wide range of diagnoses were prospectively enrolled in the ICU in this observational, method comparison study. One set of paired, simultaneous measurements was recorded for each patient.Results for the 50 included data points in the study the mean difference between CO-ECHO and CO-MON was − 0.05 ± 0.58 L/min with limits of agreement from − 1.18 to + 1.08 L/min and a percentage error of 21.5%. The mean difference between SV-ECHO and SV-MON was − 0.9 ± 6.6 mL with limits of agreement from − 13.9 to + 12.0 mL and a percentage error of 22.8%.Conclusion Accuracy of the MBA method was clinically acceptable as compared to 2D echocardiography.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.