Cardiac output measurements via echocardiography versus thermodilution: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Clicks: 397
ID: 57474
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #270 of 2,056 articles by views in PloS one

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 2,056 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Echocardiography, as a noninvasive hemodynamic evaluation technique, is frequently used in critically ill patients. Different opinions exist regarding whether it can be interchanged with traditional invasive means, such as the pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution (TD) technique. This systematic review aimed to analyze the consistency and interchangeability of cardiac output measurements by ultrasound (US) and TD. Five electronic databases were searched for studies including clinical trials conducted up to June 2019 in which patients' cardiac output was measured by ultrasound techniques (echocardiography) and TD. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers who used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), which was tailored according to our systematic review in Review Manager 5.3. A total of 68 studies with 1996 patients were identified as eligible. Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were used to compare the cardiac output (CO) measured using the different types of echocardiography and different sites of Doppler use with TD. No significant differences were found between US and TD (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.14; 95% confidence interval, -0.30 to 0.02; P = 0.08). No significant differences were observed in the subgroup analyses using different types of echocardiography and different sites except for ascending aorta (AA) (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.37; 95% confidence interval, -0.74 to -0.01; P = 0.05) of Doppler use. The median of bias and limits of agreement were -0.12 and ±0.94 L/min, respectively; the median of correlation coefficient was 0.827 (range, 0.140-0.998). Although the difference in CO between echocardiography by different types or sites and TD was not entirely consistent, the overall effect of meta-analysis showed that no significant differences were observed between US and TD. The techniques may be interchangeable under certain conditions.
Reference Key
zhang2019cardiacplos Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Zhang, Yun;Wang, Yan;Shi, Jing;Hua, Zhiqiang;Xu, Jinyu;
Journal PloS one
Year 2019
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0222105
URL
Keywords
Education health inequalities mortality socioeconomic position australia census

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.