Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Stroke volume and cardiac output measurement in cardiac patients during a rehabilitation program: comparison between tonometry, impedancemetry and echocardiography
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Stroke volume and cardiac output measurement in cardiac patients during a rehabilitation program: comparison between tonometry, impedancemetry and echocardiography
Do you wish to request the book?
Stroke volume and cardiac output measurement in cardiac patients during a rehabilitation program: comparison between tonometry, impedancemetry and echocardiography
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Stroke volume and cardiac output measurement in cardiac patients during a rehabilitation program: comparison between tonometry, impedancemetry and echocardiography
2020
Overview
Given the increasing use of noninvasive techniques for the assessment of cardiac function in clinical practice, the aim of this study was to evaluate if stroke volume (SV) and cardiac output (CO) measurements obtained by PhysioFlow impedance cardiography or HDI CR-2000 pulse wave analysis (Pulse) are interchangeable with measurements obtained by echocardiography in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or heart failure (HF). The study involved 48 men with heart disease (CAD or HF). We compared SV and CO measurements with the three devices at rest, as well as relative changes in SV and CO derived from a rehabilitation program. SV and CO measurements were carried out first by echocardiography and immediately after using tonometry and impedancemetry techniques simultaneously. The Bland–Altman analysis showed a significant bias in the measurement of absolute SV and CO values with Pulse and PhysioFlow. Four quadrant plot and polar plot analysis of relative change SV between Pulse and echocardiography show a rate of concordance of 77% (95% CI 60–88%) and 79% (95% CI 63–89%) respectively. The polar plot analysis showed a mean polar angle of 34° ± 22°, and a 30° radial sector containing 52% of the data points. Both Pulse and PhysioFlow devices overestimate absolute SV and CO values compared to values recorded using echocardiography. Similarly, neither Pulse nor PhysioFlow reliably track SV or CO changes after a rehabilitation program compared with echocardiography.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
