These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Cardiac output assessment methods in left ventricular assist device patients: A problem of heteroscedasticity.
    Author: Azih NI, Read JM, Jackson GR, Inampudi C, Witer L, Kilic A, Pope NH, Hajj J, Haddad F, Tedford RJ, Houston BA.
    Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant; 2023 Feb; 42(2):145-149. PubMed ID: 36481112.
    Abstract:
    Equipoise remains about how best to measure cardiac output (CO) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). In this study, direct Fick CO was compared with thermodilution (TD) and indirect Fick (iFick) CO in 61 LVAD patients. TD and LaFarge iFick showed moderate correlation with direct Fick (R2 = 0.49 and R2 = 0.38, p < 0.001 for both), while Dehmer and Bergstra iFick showed poor correlation with direct Fick (R2 = 0.29 and R2 = 0.31, p < 0.001 for both). Absolute bias between all CO estimation techniques and direct Fick CO was lowest for TD compared to iFick methods but significant for all methods. All methods tended to overestimate CO compared to direct Fick, with greatest overestimation present in those with the lowest measured direct Fick CO. Bias and frequency of significant discrepancy were least using TD and Lafarge iFick CO estimation methods in this study, with TD CO demonstrating modestly better correlation and less heteroscedasticity compared to Lafarge.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]