Stroke volume and cardiac output measurement in cardiac patients during a rehabilitation program: comparison between tonometry, impedancemetry and echocardiography; The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging; Vol. 36

Dettagli Bibliografici
Parent link:The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
Vol. 36.— 2020.— [P. 447-455]
Autore principale: Gonzalez R. A. Represas Alicia
Ente Autore: Национальный исследовательский Томский политехнический университет Школа базовой инженерной подготовки Отделение физической культуры
Altri autori: Mourot L. Laurent
Riassunto:Title screen
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.
Режим доступа: по договору с организацией-держателем ресурса
Lingua:inglese
Pubblicazione: 2020
Soggetti:
Accesso online:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-019-01738-y
Natura: Elettronico Capitolo di libro
KOHA link:https://koha.lib.tpu.ru/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=663732

MARC

LEADER 00000naa0a2200000 4500
001 663732
005 20250512170916.0
035 |a (RuTPU)RU\TPU\network\34902 
090 |a 663732 
100 |a 20210302d2020 k||y0rusy50 ba 
101 0 |a eng 
102 |a US 
135 |a drcn ---uucaa 
181 0 |a i  
182 0 |a b 
200 1 |a Stroke volume and cardiac output measurement in cardiac patients during a rehabilitation program: comparison between tonometry, impedancemetry and echocardiography  |f R. A. Gonzalez, L. Mourot 
203 |a Text  |c electronic 
300 |a Title screen 
320 |a [References: 41 tit.] 
330 |a 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. 
333 |a Режим доступа: по договору с организацией-держателем ресурса 
461 |t The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 
463 |t Vol. 36  |v [P. 447-455]  |d 2020 
610 1 |a электронный ресурс 
610 1 |a труды учёных ТПУ 
610 1 |a echocardiography 
610 1 |a impedance cardiography 
610 1 |a pulse wave analysis 
610 1 |a stroke volume 
610 1 |a cardiac output 
610 1 |a heart failure 
610 1 |a coronary artery disease 
610 1 |a rehabilitation 
610 1 |a exercise 
610 1 |a эхокардиография 
610 1 |a сердечная недостаточность 
610 1 |a ишемическая болезнь 
610 1 |a реабилитация 
700 1 |a Gonzalez  |b R. A.  |g Represas Alicia 
701 1 |a Mourot  |b L.  |c specialist in the field of physical training and sports  |c Senior Researcher of Tomsk Polytechnic University, Candidate of philological sciences  |f 1977-  |g Laurent  |3 (RuTPU)RU\TPU\pers\41001 
712 0 2 |a Национальный исследовательский Томский политехнический университет  |b Школа базовой инженерной подготовки  |b Отделение физической культуры  |3 (RuTPU)RU\TPU\col\23545 
801 2 |a RU  |b 63413507  |c 20220624  |g RCR 
850 |a 63413507 
856 4 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-019-01738-y 
942 |c CF