AJCC
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

American Journal of Critical Care. 2005;14: 40-45
Copyright © 2005 by the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Respond to This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Engoren, M.
Right arrow Articles by Barbee, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Engoren, M.
Right arrow Articles by Barbee, D.

Comparison of Cardiac Output Determined by Bioimpedance, Thermodilution, and the Fick Method

By Milo Engoren, MD and Daniel Barbee, RN, BSN, MBA. From the departments of Anesthesiology (ME), Internal Medicine (ME), and Nursing (DB), St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio.

• Background Cardiac output can be determined by using a variety of methods.

• Objectives To determine the precision and bias between 3 methods for determining cardiac output: bioimpedance, thermodilution, and the Fick method.

• Methods Cardiac output was determined by using bioimpedance via neck and thorax patches and thermodilution via pulmonary artery catheter in 46 patients in the intensive care unit. A subset of 15 patients also had cardiac output determined by using the Fick method.

• Results Mean (SD) cardiac output in all patients was 6.3 (2.2) L/min by thermodilution and 5.6 (2.0) L/min by bioimpedance. In the 15 patients in whom all 3 methods were used, mean cardiac output was 6.0 (1.7) L/min by thermodilution, 5.3 (1.7) L/min by bioimpedance, and 8.6 (4.5) L/min by the Fick method. Bias and precision (mean difference ± 2 SDs) were 0.7 ± 2.9 L/min between thermodilution and bioimpedance, 1.7 ± 3.8 L/min between the Fick method and thermodilution, and 2.4 ± 4.7 L/min between the Fick method and bioimpedance.

• Conclusion Bioimpedance, thermodilution, and Fick determinations of cardiac outputs are not interchangeable in a heterogenous population of critically ill patients.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 EuropaceHome page
F. Z. Khan, M. S. Virdee, P. J. Pugh, P. A. Read, S. P. Fynn, and D. P. Dutka
Non-invasive cardiac output measurements based on bioreactance for optimization of atrio- and interventricular delays
Europace, December 1, 2009; 11(12): 1666 - 1674.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 SEMIN CARDIOTHORAC VASC ANESTHHome page
F. Compton and J.-H. Schafer
Noninvasive Cardiac Output Determination: Broadening the Applicability of Hemodynamic Monitoring
Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, March 1, 2009; 13(1): 44 - 55.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 NDT PlusHome page
C. W. McIntyre, S. G. John, and H. J. Jefferies
Advances in the cardiovascular assessment of patients with chronic kidney disease
NDT Plus, December 1, 2008; 1(6): 383 - 391.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol.Home page
H. Keren, D. Burkhoff, and P. Squara
Evaluation of a noninvasive continuous cardiac output monitoring system based on thoracic bioreactance
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, July 1, 2007; 293(1): H583 - H589.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.