2012
DOI: 10.1590/s0066-782x2012005000104
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bioimpedância transtorácica comparada à ressonância magnética na avaliação do débito cardíaco

Abstract: ResumoBackground: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is considered the gold-standard method for the calculation of cardiac volumes. Transthoracic impedance cardiography assesses the cardiac output. No studies validating this measurement, in comparison to that obtained by magnetic resonance imaging, are available.Objective:To evaluate the performance of transthoracic impedance cardiography in the calculation of the cardiac output, cardiac index and stroke volume using magnetic resonance imaging as the gold-stan… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In HF monitoring, ICG presented hemodynamic results comparable with those obtained by cardiac magnetic resonance 13 and good correlation with invasive methods determinations (notably the Swan-Ganz catheter), with correlation coefficients between 0.76 and 0.89. 4,14…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…In HF monitoring, ICG presented hemodynamic results comparable with those obtained by cardiac magnetic resonance 13 and good correlation with invasive methods determinations (notably the Swan-Ganz catheter), with correlation coefficients between 0.76 and 0.89. 4,14…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…We used ICG as it is operator-independent, simple, non-invasive and ideally suited for serial measurement of changes over time [35][37]. Although there has been some doubt about the accuracy and applicability of this method in pregnancy [38],[39] and limitations have been highlighted [40], the hemodynamic measurements obtained using newer generation ICG machines have been validated and shown to be accurate [41],[42], reproducible, reliable and useful also in pregnant population [24],[43]–[45]. ICG has been demonstrated to have the ability to detect subtle changes in SV associated with change in maternal position [45].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A closer look at the Bland-Altman plot provided in their analysis reveals a wide dispersion of the 95% LOA (approximately -22 to +20 ml) for SV measurements, which is in accordance with our results and indicates poor precision. In contrast, Villacorta Junior et al (2012) took into account both the bias (approximately 0.3 L•min -1 ) and the 95% LOA (approximately -1.0 to 1.4 L•min -1 ) in concluding that ICG-derived absolute CO measurement has acceptable accuracy and precision compared to CMR. Even though the findings of most of these studies (including ours) do A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t not support the use of ICG as an alternative to CMR, there is still a need to investigate the performance of different ICG devices in different populations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This was the first study to compare the performance of ICG and CMR for characterising SV, CO and EDV in breast cancer patients. Five previous studies have examined the performance of ICG in comparison to CMR in other populations: paediatric patients (either with or without cardiac disease) (Taylor et al, 2012), adult healthy participants (Borzage et al, 2017), adult patients referred for a CMR scan (Villacorta Junior et al, 2012), adult and paediatric patients with congenital heart disease (Ebrahim et al, 2016) and adult patients suspected of suffering from pulmonary arterial hypertension (Panagiotou et al, 2018). Our findings of poor precision are in accordance with those reported by Taylor et al (2012) and Borzage et al (2017), with ICG showing either an over-or under-estimation of both CI (cardiac index, equal to CO divided by body surface area) and SV of up to 73% and 92%, respectively, compared to CMR.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation