Monitoring Cardiac Output Continuously in the Operating Room and Intensive Care Unit

Wesseling, Karel H.; Wit, B. de; Settels, Jos J.; Jansen, Jos R. C.; Schreuder, Johannes Jacobus

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-77362-4_3

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently published errors for the CZ method are near the ones reported here in Table 3; older results indicate larger errors. This may be due to a less precise reference cardiac output method (18).…”

Section: Comparison With Cz Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Computation of aortic flow from pressure in humans using a nonlinear, three-element model

Wesseling

Jansen²,

Settels³

et al. 1993

Journal of Applied Physiology

Self Cite

972

770

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We computed aortic flow pulsations from arterial pressure by simulating a nonlinear, time-varying three-element model of aortic input impedance. The model elements represent aortic characteristic impedance, arterial compliance, and systemic vascular resistance. Parameter values for the first two elements were computed from a published, age-dependent, aortic pressure-area relationship (G. J. Langewouters et al. J. Biomech. 17:425-435, 1984). Peripheral resistance was predicted from mean pressure and model mean flow. Model flow pulsations from aortic pressure showed the visual aspects of an aortic flow curve. For evaluation we compared model mean flow from radial arterial pressure with thermodilution cardiac output estimations, 76 times, in eight open heart surgical patients. The pooled mean difference was +7%, the SD 22%. After using one comparison per patient to calibrate the model, however, we followed quantitative changes in cardiac output that occurred either during changes in the state of the patient or subsequent to vasoactive drugs. The mean deviation from thermodilution cardiac output was +2%, the SD 8%. Given these small errors the method could monitor cardiac output continuously.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Cz Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus part of the 8% error in the comparison is due to errors in the reference method. We subtracted this error as explained elsewhere (18). The resulting error of the model flow method alone becomes 6%; that of the CZ method, 11%.…”

Section: Error Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%