1992
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2995.1992.tb00084.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accuracy of the thermodilution method in estimating high flow - an in vitro study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
0
1

Year Published

1997
1997
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 18 publications
(33 reference statements)
0
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Elkayam et al (1983) demonstrated that thermodilution overestimated actual flow, due to loss of the thermal indicator. However, other workers using a constant flow model have shown that thermodilution underestimates flow at the flow rates observed in this study (Jarvis et al 1992). Some authors believe that errors are so great in conditions of pulsatile flow that little reliance can be placed on any absolute measurement of cardiac output by thermodilution (Mackenzie et al 1986); whereas others suggest that with due precautions and attention to detail, thermodilution provides an accurate means of measuring cardiac output (Ganz et al 1971;Levett and Repogle 1979) and may be considered a reference technique (Stetz et al 1982).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 68%
“…Elkayam et al (1983) demonstrated that thermodilution overestimated actual flow, due to loss of the thermal indicator. However, other workers using a constant flow model have shown that thermodilution underestimates flow at the flow rates observed in this study (Jarvis et al 1992). Some authors believe that errors are so great in conditions of pulsatile flow that little reliance can be placed on any absolute measurement of cardiac output by thermodilution (Mackenzie et al 1986); whereas others suggest that with due precautions and attention to detail, thermodilution provides an accurate means of measuring cardiac output (Ganz et al 1971;Levett and Repogle 1979) and may be considered a reference technique (Stetz et al 1982).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 68%