TY - JOUR
T1 - Stroke volume and cardiac output measurement in cardiac patients during a rehabilitation program
T2 - comparison between tonometry, impedancemetry and echocardiography
AU - Gonzalez-Represas, Alicia
AU - Mourot, Laurent
PY - 2020/3/1
Y1 - 2020/3/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Cardiac output
KW - Coronary artery disease
KW - Echocardiography
KW - Exercise
KW - Heart failure
KW - Impedance cardiography
KW - Pulse wave analysis
KW - Rehabilitation
KW - Stroke volume
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076516753&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85076516753&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10554-019-01738-y
DO - 10.1007/s10554-019-01738-y
M3 - Article
C2 - 31845049
AN - SCOPUS:85076516753
VL - 36
SP - 447
EP - 455
JO - International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
JF - International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
SN - 1569-5794
IS - 3
ER -