Cardiac index assessment: Validation of a new non-invasive very low current thoracic bioimpedance device by thermodilution

References

• Vincent JL, Rhodes A, Perel A, Martin GS, Della Rocca G, Vallet B, et al. Clinical review: Update on hemodynamic monitoring – A consensus of 16. Crit Care. 2011;15:229.
   Google Scholar
• Mathews L, Singh RK. Swan–Ganz catheter in hemodynamic monitoring. J Anaesth Clin Pharmacol. 2006;22:335–345.
   Google Scholar
• Mathews L, Singh RK. Cardiac output monitoring. Ann Card Anaesth. 2008;11:56–68.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reuter DA, Huang C, Edrich T, Shernan SK, Eltzschig HK. Cardiac output monitoring using indicator–dilution techniques: Basics, limits, and perspectives. Anesth Analg. 2010; 110:799–811.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alhashemi JA, Cecconi M, Hofer CK. Cardiac output monitoring: An integrative perspective. Crit Care. 2011;15:214.
   Google Scholar
• Woltjer HH, Bogaard HJ, de Vries PM. The technique of impedance cardiography. Eur Heart J. 1997;18:1396–1403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osypka MJ, Bernstein DP. Electrophysiologic principles and theory of stroke volume determination by thoracic electrical bioimpedance. AACN Clin Issues. 1999;10:385–399.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Strobeck JE, Silver MA. Beyond the four quadrants: The critical and emerging role of impedance cardiography in heart failure. Congest Heart Fail. 2004;10 Suppl 2:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Tang WH, Tong W. Measuring impedance in congestive heart failure: Current options and clinical applications. Am Heart J. 2009;157:402–411.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sodolski T, Kutarski A. Impedance cardiography: A valuable method of evaluating haemodynamic parameters. Cardiol J. 2007;14:115–126.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fuller HD. The validity of cardiac output measurement by thoracic impedance: A meta-analysis. Clin Invest Med. 1992; 15:103–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raaijmakers E, Faes TJ, Scholten RJ, Goovaerts HG, Heethaar RM. A meta-analysis of three decades of validating thoracic impedance cardiography. Crit Care Med. 1999;27: 1203–1213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Critchley LA, Critchley JA. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput. 1999;15:85–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang DJ, Gottlieb SS. Impedance cardiography: More questions than answers. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2006;8:180–186.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Badila E, Tîrziu C, Iorgulescu CN, Stefuriac M, Bartos D, Dorobantu M. The role of thoracic electrical bioimpedance in the control of high blood pressure. Revista româna de cardiologie. 2006;21:13–20.
   Google Scholar
• Mimoun L, Hering D, Boutouyrie P, Kucharska W, Laurent S, Narkiewicz K. Reproducibility of non-invasive cardiac index measurement with impedancemetry in hypertensives and healthy controls [abstract]. J Hypertens. 2009;27 Suppl 4:S370.
   Google Scholar
• Du Bois D, Du Bois EF. A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. 1916. Nutrition. 1989;5:303–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: The analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician. 1983;32: 307–317.
   Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• British Standards Institution. Precision of test methods, part 1: Guide for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility for a standard test method. BS 5497, Part 1. London: BSI; 1979.
   Google Scholar
• Koch GG. Intraclass correlation coefficient. In Kotz S, Johnson NL, editors. Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. 4. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1982. p 213–217.
   Google Scholar
• Stetz CW, Miller RG, Kelly GE, Raffin TA. Reliability of the thermodilution method in the determination of cardiac output in clinical practice. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1982;126: 1001–1004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cecconi M, Rhodes A, Poloniecki J, Della Rocca G, Grounds RM. Bench-to-bedside review: The importance of the precision of the reference technique in method comparison studies – With specific reference to the measurement of cardiac output. Crit Care. 2009;13:201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartleb M, Rudzki K, Waluga M, Janusz M, Karpel E. Usefulness of thoracic electrical bioimpedance in detection of ejection fraction changes. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2000;51: 151–159.
   Google Scholar
• Heringlake M, Handke U, Hanke T, Eberhardt F, Schumacher J, Gehring H, Heinze H. Lack of agreement between thermodilution and electrical velocimetry cardiac output measurements. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33: 2168–2172.
   Google Scholar
• Tomsin K, Mesens T, Molenberghs G, Gyselaers W. Diurnal and position-induced variability of impedance cardiography measurements in healthy subjects. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2011;31:145–150.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reisner AT, Xu D, Ryan KL, Convertino VA, Rickards CA, Mukkamala R. Monitoring non-invasive cardiac output and stroke volume during experimental human hypovolaemia and resuscitation. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:23–30.
   Google Scholar
• Verhoeve PE, Cadwell CA, Tsadok S. Reproducibility of non invasive bioimpedance measurements of cardiac function [abstract]. J Card Fail. 1998;4(suppl.):S34
   Google Scholar
• Ng HW, Coleman N, Walley TJ, Mostafa SM, Breckenridge AM. Reproducibility and comparison of cardiac output measurement by transthoracic bioimpedance and thermodilution methods in critically ill patients. Clin Intensive Care. 1993;4: 217–221.
   Google Scholar
• Jewkes C, Sear JW, Verhoeff F, Sanders DJ, Foëx P. Non- invasive measurement of cardiac output by thoracic electrical bioimpedance: A study of reproducibility and comparison with thermodilution. Br J Anaesth. 1991;67:788–794.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar