Noninvasive Estimation Of Cardiac Output Research Articles

Clinical evaluation of a diameter sensing Doppler cardiac output meter

A concentric beam Doppler ultrasonic flowmeter has been developed. This instrument has capacity for independent assessment of volumetric flow, as it determines flow cross-section area, stroke length, and pulse rate from the Doppler signals alone. The method is practically independent of the angle of interrogation. We used this device and obtained noninvasive estimates of cardiac output in 54 patients undergoing invasive assessment of cardiac output by thermodilution, Fick, or indicator dye methods (x). Correlations against pooled cardiac output reference standards ranged from r = .86 (y = .86x + 1.03) in 26 studies of high confidence to r = .45 (y = .30x + 2.62) in 17 studies under difficult conditions. The overall correlation was r = .68 (y = .63x + 1.49, n = 87). Noninvasive results of experienced and inexperienced operators were similar (r = .87). The instrument returned accurate assessments of heart rate (r = .83), but underestimated stroke length (r = .72) and appeared to be limited in the assessment of aortic diameters less than 28 or greater than 31 mm (r = .23). We conclude that stand-alone Doppler assessment of cardiac output is appealing and feasible, but difficult or impossible in many ICU scenarios. Further evolution of the concentric beam Doppler approach is needed and anticipated.

Cardiac output by rebreathing in patients with cardiopulmonary diseases.

Noninvasive estimates of cardiac output by rebreathing soluble gases (Qc) can be unreliable in patients with cardiopulmonary diseases because of uneven distribution of ventilation to lung gas volume and pulmonary blood flow. To evaluate this source of error, we compared rebreathing Qc with invasive measurements of cardiac output performed by indicator-dilution methods (COID) in 39 patients with cardiac or pulmonary diseases. In 16 patients with normal lung volumes and 1-s forced expiratory volumes (FEV1), Qc measured with acetylene [Qc(C2H2)] overestimated COID insignificantly by 2 +/- 9% (SD). In subjects with mild to moderate obstructive lung disease, Qc(C2H2) slightly overestimated COID by 6 +/- 15% (P = 0.11). In patients with restrictive disease or combined obstructive and restrictive disease, Qc(C2H2) underestimated COID significantly by 9 +/- 14% (P less than 0.04). The magnitude of the discrepancy between Qc and COID correlated with size of the volume rebreathed and an index of uneven ventilation calculated from helium mixing during rebreathing that determined a dead space to inspired volume ratio (VRD/VI). Rebreathing volumes less than 40% of the predicted FEV or VRD/VI of 0.4 or greater identified all subjects with a discrepancy between Qc(C2H2) and COID of 20% or greater.