Publication: Are noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring interchangeable with esophageal doppler?
dc.contributor.author | C. Pisitsak | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | P. Luetrakool | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | M. Pisalayon | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | T. Thamjamrassri | en_US |
dc.contributor.other | Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-08-25T10:36:49Z | |
dc.date.available | 2020-08-25T10:36:49Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020-06-01 | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | © 2020 Medical Association of Thailand. All rights reserved. Objective: To compare the trending ability, accuracy, and precision of non-invasive stroke volume (SV) measurement based on a bioreactance technique and measurement of the pulse wave transit time (PWTT) versus the esophageal Doppler monitoring (EDM). Materials and Methods: Two hundred twenty-seven paired measurements from 10 patients who underwent abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were included for SV measurements. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated, and Bland-Altman analysis was performed to evaluate the agreement between EDM and bioreactance (EDM-bioreactance) and between EDM and PWTT (EDM-PWTT). Results: EDM-bioreactance had a correlation coefficient of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62 to 0.78; p<0.001), bias of 0.28 ml (limits of agreement -30.92 to 31.38 ml), and percentage error of 46.82%. EDM-PWTT had a correlation coefficient of 0.48 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.72; p<0.001), bias of -0.18 ml (limits of agreement -40.28 to 39.92 ml), and percentage error of 60.17%. A subgroup analysis of data from patients who underwent crystalloid loading was performed to detect the trending ability. The four-quadrant plot analysis between EDM-bioreactance and EDM-PWTT demonstrated concordance rates of 70.00% and 73.68%, respectively. Conclusion: SV measurement based on bioreactance technique and measurement of PWTT are not interchangeable with EDM. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. Vol.103, No.6 (2020), 541-547 | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.35755/jmedassocthai.2020.06.10413 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 01252208 | en_US |
dc.identifier.other | 2-s2.0-85089115969 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/58136 | |
dc.rights | Mahidol University | en_US |
dc.rights.holder | SCOPUS | en_US |
dc.source.uri | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85089115969&origin=inward | en_US |
dc.subject | Medicine | en_US |
dc.title | Are noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring interchangeable with esophageal doppler? | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
mu.datasource.scopus | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85089115969&origin=inward | en_US |