Use of the USCOM® noninvasive cardiac output measurement system to predict the development of pre-eclampsia in hypertensive pregnancies

References

• Brown MA, Magee LA, Kenny LC, et al. The hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: ISSHP classification, diagnosis & management recommendations for international practice. Pregnancy Hyperts. 2018;13:291–10. doi:10.1016/j.preghy.2018.05.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ukah UV, De Silva DA, Payne B, et al. Prediction of adverse maternal outcomes from pre-eclampsia and other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a systematic review. Pregnancy Hyperts. 2018;11:115–123. doi:10.1016/j.preghy.2017.11.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melchiorre K, Sharma R, Khalil A, et al. Maternal cardiovascular function in normal pregnancy: evidence of maladaptation to chronic volume overload. Hypertens. 2016;67(4):754–762. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIOAHA.115.06667.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duvekot JJ, Peeters LLH. Maternal cardiovascular hemodynamic adaptation to pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1994;49(Supplement):S1. doi:10.1097/00006254-199412011-00001.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Melchiorre K, Sutherland GR, Watt-Coote I, et al. Severe myocardial impairment and chamber dysfunction in preterm preeclampsia. Hypertens Preg. 2012;31(4):454–471. doi:10.3109/10641955.2012.697951.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valensise H, Vasapollo B, Gagliardi G, et al. Early and late preeclampsia: two different maternal hemodynamic states in the latent phase of the disease. Hypertens. 2008;52(5):873–880. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.108.117358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guy GP, Ling HZ, Garcia P, et al. Maternal cardiac function at 35–37 weeks’ gestation: prediction of pre-eclampsia and gestational hypertension. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(1):61–66. doi:10.1002/uog.17300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saudan P, Brown MA, Buddle ML, et al. Does gestational hypertension become pre-eclampsia? BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105(11):1177–1184. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb09971.x.
   Google Scholar
• Mangos JG, Pettit F, Preece R, et al. Repeatability of USCOM®-measured cardiac output in normotensive non-pregnant and pregnant women. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2018;12:71–74. doi:10.1016/j.preghy.2018.03.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kager CCM, Dekker GA, Stam MC. Measurement of cardiac output in normal pregnancy by a non-invasive two-dimensional independent Doppler device. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;49:142–144. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.00948.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara H, Barclay P, Sharma V. Accuracy and precision of the ultrasound cardiac output monitor (USCOM 1A) in pregnancy: comparison with three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113:669–676. doi:10.1093/bja/aeu162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khalil A, Goodyear G, Joseph E, et al. PP097. Cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance in normal pregnancy and in control non-pregnant women. Pregnancy Hypertens Int J Womens Cardiovasc Health. 2012;2(3):292–293. doi:10.1016/j.preghy.2012.04.208.
   Google Scholar
• Chong SW, Peyton PJ. A meta-analysis of the accuracy and precision of the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM). Anaesthesia. 2012;67(11):1266–1271. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07311.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaughlin K, Snelgrove JW, Sienas LE, et al. Phenotype‐directed management of hypertension in pregnancy. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11(7):e023694. doi:10.1161/JAHA.121.023694.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinayagam D, Patey O, Thilaganathan B, et al. Cardiac output assessment in pregnancy: comparison of two automated monitors with echocardiography: CO monitors vs echocardiography in pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(1):32–38. doi:10.1002/uog.15915.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siu CW, Tse HF, Lee K, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy optimization by ultrasonic cardiac output monitoring (USCOM) device.Pacing Clin Electrophis. 2007 [[cited 2021 Sep 4]];30(1):50–55. doi:10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00579.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rolnik DL, Wright D, Poon LC, et al. Aspirin versus placebo in pregnancies at high risk for preterm preeclampsia. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(7):613–622. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1704559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guy G, Leslie K, Diaz Gomez D, et al. Implementation of routine first trimester combined screening for pre‐eclampsia: a clinical effectiveness study. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;128(2):149–156. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.16361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allotey J, Snell KI, Smuk M, et al. Validation and development of models using clinical, biochemical and ultrasound markers for predicting pre-eclampsia: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2020;24(72):1–252. doi:10.3310/hta24720.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaughlin K, Zhang J, Lye SJ, et al. Phenotypes of pregnant women who subsequently develop hypertension in pregnancy. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(14):e009595. doi:10.1161/JAHA.118.009595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulder EG, Ghossein-Doha C, Cauffman E, et al. Preventing recurrent preeclampsia by tailored treatment of nonphysiologic hemodynamic adjustments to pregnancy. Hypertens. 2021;77(6):2045–2053. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.16502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowe SA, Bowyer L, Lust K, et al. SOMANZ guidelines for the management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 2014. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;55(5):e1–e29. doi:10.1111/ajo.12399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tay J, Foo L, Masini G, et al. Early and late preeclampsia are characterized by high cardiac output, but in the presence of fetal growth restriction, cardiac output is low: insights from a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(5):0.e517.1–0.e517.12. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.02.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magee LA, Von Dadelszen P, Singer J, et al. The CHIPS randomized controlled trial (control of hypertension in pregnancy study): is severe hypertension just an elevated blood pressure? Hypertens. 2016;68(5):1153–1159. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.07862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tita AT, Szychowski JM, Boggess K, et al. Treatment for mild chronic hypertension during pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(19):1781–1792. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2201295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang L, Tang K, Magee LA, et al. A global view of hypertensive disorders and diabetes mellitus during pregnancy. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2022;18(12):760–775. doi:10.1038/s41574-022-00734-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateman BT, Bansil P, Hernandez-Diaz S, et al. Prevalence, trends, and outcomes of chronic hypertension: a nationwide sample of delivery admissions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(2):0.e134.1–0.e134.8. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.10.878.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Lelyveld-Haas LEM, van Zanten ARH, Borm GF, et al. Clinical validation of the non-invasive cardiac output monitor USCOM-1A in critically ill patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2008;25(11):917–924. doi:10.1017/S0265021508004882.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koh W, Schneider KA, Zang H, et al. Measurement of cardiac output using an ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) in patients with single-ventricle physiology. Pediatr Cardiol. 2022;43(6):1205–1213. doi:10.1007/s00246-022-02840-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dey I, Sprivulis P. Emergency physicians can reliably assess emergency department patient cardiac output using the USCOM continuous wave Doppler cardiac output monitor: USCOM cardiac output assessment in ED. Emerg Med Australas. 2005;17(3):193–199. doi:10.1111/j.1742-6723.2005.00722.x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wong LSG, Yong BH, Young KK, et al. Comparison of the USCOM ultrasound cardiac output monitor with pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2008;14(7):1038–1043. doi:10.1002/lt.21483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang L, Critchley LAH. Study to determine the repeatability of supra-sternal Doppler (ultrasound cardiac output monitor) during general anaesthesia: effects of scan quality, flow volume, and increasing age. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(6):907–915. doi:10.1093/bja/aet254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Critchley LAH, Huang L. USCOM—window to the circulation: utility of supra-sternal Doppler in an elderly anaesthetized patient for a robotic cystectomy. J Clin Monit Comput. 2014;28(1):83–93. doi:10.1007/s10877-013-9499-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siu L, Tucker A, Manikappa SK, et al. Does patient position influence Doppler signal quality from the USCOM ultrasonic cardiac output monitor? Anesth Analg. 2008;106(6):1798–1802. doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e3181732127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel N, Dodsworth M, Mills JF. Cardiac output measurement in newborn infants using the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor: an assessment of agreement with conventional echocardiography, repeatability and new user experience. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2011;96(3):F206–F211. doi:10.1136/adc.2009.170704.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buddeberg BS, Sharma R, O’Driscoll JM, et al. Cardiac maladaptation in term pregnancies with preeclampsia. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2018;13:198–203. doi:10.1016/j.preghy.2018.06.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novelli GP, Valensise H, Vasapollo B, et al. Left ventricular concentric geometry as a risk factor in gestational hypertension. Hypertens. 2003;41(3):469–475. doi:10.1161/01.HYP.0000058001.67791.0A.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar