Evaluation of impedance cardiography: Comparison of NCCOM3-R7 with Fick and thermodilution methods

Yakimets, Joan; Jensen, Louise

doi:10.1016/s0147-9563(05)80037-8

Cited by 26 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These range from 0.63 to 0.84 and from 0.89 to 0.93, when the Kubicek equation and the SramekBerstein equation were used, respectively. More recently, Yakimets and Jensen (1995), who studied patients undergoing a coronary angiogram or after heart surgery, found that impedance cardiography underestimated Fick measurements by [mean (SD)] 1.05 (1.53) l á min )1 at rest, and by 1.50 (2.20) l á min )1 during exercise. This means that impedance cardiography may be 4.1 l á min )1 below or 2.01 l á min )1 above Fick at rest, and 5.9 l á min )1 below or 2.9 l á min )1 above Fick during exercise, dierences that are clinically unacceptable for evaluating cardiac performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new impedance cardiograph device for the non-invasive evaluation of cardiac output at rest and during exercise: comparison with the "direct" Fick method

Charloux¹,

Lonsdorfer‐Wolf²,

Richard³

et al. 2000

European Journal of Applied Physiology

366

324

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of a new impedance cardiograph device, the Physio Flow, at rest and during a steady-state dynamic leg exercise (work intensity ranging from 10 to 50 W) performed in the supine position. We compared cardiac output determined simultaneously by two methods, the Physio Flow (QcPF) and the direct Fick (QcFick) methods. Forty patients referred for right cardiac catheterisation, 14 with sleep apnoea syndrome and 26 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, took part in this study. The subjects' oxygen consumption values ranged from 0.14 to 1.19 l x min(-1). The mean difference between the two methods (QcFick - QcPF) was 0.04 l x min(-1) at rest and 0.29 l x min(-1) during exercise. The limits of agreement, defined as mean difference +/- 2SD, were -1.34, +1.41 l x min(-1)] at rest and -2.34, +2.92 l x min(-1) during exercise. The difference between the two methods exceeded 20% in only 2.5% of the cases at rest, and 9.3% of the cases during exercise. Thoracic hyperinflation did not alter QcPF. We conclude that the Physio Flow provides a clinically acceptable and non-invasive evaluation of cardiac output under these conditions. This new impedance cardiograph device deserves further study using other populations and situations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new impedance cardiograph device for the non-invasive evaluation of cardiac output at rest and during exercise: comparison with the "direct" Fick method

Charloux¹,

Lonsdorfer‐Wolf²,

Richard³

et al. 2000

European Journal of Applied Physiology

366

324

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The above-mentioned papers demonstrated that ICG measurements provide a level of agreement that is equivalent to thermodilution technique when patients are in rest, but there is still some disagreement about measurements obtained during exercise [33,34]. Jakovljevic et al reported a comparison of the ICG device and bioreactance during high exercise intensity, the authors concluded that CO obtained using bioreactance provides more reliable measurements during exercise [35].…”

Section: Feasibility-repeatability-reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-invasive assessment of gestational hemodynamics: benefits and limitations of impedance cardiography versus other techniques

Staelens

Tomsin

Grieten

et al. 2013

Expert Review of Medical Devices

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To obtain data for maternal stroke volume and cardiac output during pregnancy, it is preferable to use a non-invasive, accurate and reproducible method. In this aspect, impedance cardiography is an excellent technique which is also highly accessible and easy to perform. This paper is a comprehensive review on the published literature about impedance cardiography and highlights the strengths and limitations of its applications in obstetrics.

show abstract

“…These devices assume that impedance is exclusively a function of changes in intrathoracic blood; they are susceptible to electrical noise, electrode positioning, and pulmonary edema, and are not particularly accurate. [116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124] Bioreactance, in which the phase shift between the applied and measured voltage is correlated to stroke volume, was developed in an effort to reduce the sensitivity to artifact. 125 Advantages of bioimpedance and bioreactance devices include their completely noninvasive nature as well as their ability to provide continuous measurements.…”

Section: Technological Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inter-device differences in monitoring for goal-directed fluid therapy

Thiele

Bartels

Gan

2014

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of impedance cardiography: Comparison of NCCOM3-R7 with Fick and thermodilution methods

Cited by 26 publications

References 42 publications

A new impedance cardiograph device for the non-invasive evaluation of cardiac output at rest and during exercise: comparison with the "direct" Fick method

A new impedance cardiograph device for the non-invasive evaluation of cardiac output at rest and during exercise: comparison with the "direct" Fick method

Non-invasive assessment of gestational hemodynamics: benefits and limitations of impedance cardiography versus other techniques

Inter-device differences in monitoring for goal-directed fluid therapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About