SORA

Advancing, promoting and sharing knowledge of health through excellence in teaching, clinical practice and research into the prevention and treatment of illness

Cardiac output assessment in pregnancy: comparison of two automated monitors with echocardiography.

Vinayagam, D; Patey, O; Thilaganathan, B; Khalil, A (2017) Cardiac output assessment in pregnancy: comparison of two automated monitors with echocardiography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 49 (1). pp. 32-38. ISSN 1469-0705 https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15915
SGUL Authors: Thilaganathan, Baskaran Khalil, Asma

[img]
Preview
PDF Accepted Version
Available under License ["licenses_description_publisher" not defined].

Download (2MB) | Preview

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare non-invasive hemodynamic measurements obtained in pregnant and postpartum women using two automated cardiac output monitors against those obtained by two-dimensional (2D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). METHODS: This was a cross-comparison study into which we recruited 114 healthy women, either with normal singleton pregnancy (across all three trimesters) or within 72 hours following delivery. Cardiac output estimations were obtained non-invasively using two different monitors, Ultrasound Cardiac Output Monitor (USCOM®, which uses continuous-wave Doppler analysis of transaortic blood flow) and Non-Invasive Cardiac Output Monitor (NICOM®, which uses thoracic bioreactance), and 2D-TTE. The performance of each monitor was assessed relative to that of TTE by calculating bias, precision, 95% limits of agreement and mean percentage difference (MPD). Intraobserver repeatability was assessed for both monitors and interobserver reproducibility was assessed for USCOM, NICOM being operator-independent. RESULTS: Following exclusions due to poor-quality results of a monitor or TTE, or for medical reasons, our analysis included 98 women (29 in the first trimester, 25 in the second and 21 in the third, and 23 postpartum). For cardiac output estimation, when compared with TTE, USCOM had a bias ranging from 0.4 to 0.9 L/min. The MPD of USCOM was 29% in the third-trimester cohort. NICOM had a bias ranging from -1.0 to 0.6 L/min, with a MPD of 32% in the third-trimester group. There was limited agreement between the cardiac output monitors and TTE in the first and second trimesters, with a MPD of 38% for USCOM in both first and second trimesters, and 71% and 61% for NICOM in first and second trimesters, respectively. For cardiac output estimation using USCOM, we found excellent intraobserver repeatability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98) and interobserver reproducibility (ICC, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and the repeatability for NICOM was comparable (ICC, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: We found good agreement of both USCOM and NICOM when compared with 2D-TTE, specifically in the third trimester of pregnancy. Both devices had good intraobserver repeatability and either had good interobserver reproducibility or were operator-independent. Future studies should take into account the significant differences in the precise maternal hemodynamic values obtained by these devices, and consider developing device-specific reference ranges in pregnancy and the postpartum period. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Vinayagam, D., Patey, O., Thilaganathan, B. and Khalil, A. (2017), Cardiac output assessment in pregnancy: comparison of two automated monitors with echocardiography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 49: 32–38. doi:10.1002/uog.15915, which has been published in final form at http://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15915. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
Keywords: NICOM®, USCOM®, cardiac output, echocardiography, hemodynamics, non-invasive, cardiac output, echocardiography, hemodynamics, NICOM (R), non-invasive, USCOM (R), Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, 1114 Paediatrics And Reproductive Medicine
SGUL Research Institute / Research Centre: Academic Structure > Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute (MCS)
Academic Structure > Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute (MCS) > Vascular (INCCVA)
Journal or Publication Title: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
ISSN: 1469-0705
Language: eng
Dates:
DateEvent
5 January 2017Published
11 March 2016Published Online
26 February 2016Accepted
Publisher License: Publisher's own licence
PubMed ID: 26970353
Web of Science ID: WOS:000391280000008
Go to PubMed abstract
URI: http://sgultest.da.ulcc.ac.uk/id/eprint/108583
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15915

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item