-
Something wrong with this record ?
Stroke Volume Measurements by Echocardiography and Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor in Children: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study
J. Fremuth, M. Huml, T. Pomahacova, J. Kobr, S. Kormunda, J. Sykora
Language English Country United States
Document type Observational Study, Journal Article
- MeSH
- Child MeSH
- Echocardiography * methods MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Cardiac Output MeSH
- Monitoring, Physiologic methods MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Stroke Volume MeSH
- Ultrasonics * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Child MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Observational Study MeSH
OBJECTIVES: Stroke volume (SV) and cardiac output monitoring is a cornerstone of hemodynamic assessment. Noninvasive technologies are increasingly used in children. This study compared SV measurements obtained by transcutaneous Doppler ultrasound techniques (ultrasonic cardiac output monitor [USCOM]), transthoracic echocardiography jugular (TTE-J), and parasternal (TTE-P) views performed by pediatric intensivists (OP-As) with limited training in cardiac sonography (20 previous examinations) and pediatric cardiologists (OP-Bs) with limited training in USCOM (30 previous examinations) in spontaneously ventilating children. METHODS: A single-center study was conducted in 37 children. Each operator obtained 3 sets of USCOM SV measurements within a period of 3 to 5 minutes, followed with TTE measurements from both apical and jugular views. The investigators were blinded to each other's results to prevent visual and auditory bias. RESULTS: Both USCOM and TTE methods were applicable in 89% of patients. The intraobserver variability of USCOM, TTE-J, and TTE-P were less than 10% in both investigators. The SV measurements by OP-As using USCOM, TTE-J, and TTE-P were 46.15 (25.48) mL, 39.45 (20.65) mL, and 33.42 (16.69) mL, respectively. The SV measurements by OP-Bs using USCOM, TTE-J, and TTE-P were 43.99 (25.24) mL, 38.91 (19.98) mL, and 37.58 (19.81) mL, respectively.The percentage error in SV with USCOM relative to TTE-J was 36% in OP-As and 37% in OP-Bs. The percentage error in SV with TTE-P was 33% relative to TTE-J in OP-As and 21% in OP-Bs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that the methods are not interchangeable because SV values by USCOM are higher in comparison with the SV values obtained by TTE. Both methods have low level of intraobserver variability. The SV measurements obtained by TTE-P were significantly lower compared with the TTE-J for the operator with limited training in echocardiography. The TTE-P requires longer practice compared with the TTE-J; therefore, we recommend to prefer TTE-J to TTE-P for inexperienced operators.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc23016351
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20231026110007.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 231013s2023 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1097/PEC.0000000000003018 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)37478016
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Fremuth, Jiri $u From the Department of Pediatrics, Faculty Hospital, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
- 245 10
- $a Stroke Volume Measurements by Echocardiography and Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor in Children: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study / $c J. Fremuth, M. Huml, T. Pomahacova, J. Kobr, S. Kormunda, J. Sykora
- 520 9_
- $a OBJECTIVES: Stroke volume (SV) and cardiac output monitoring is a cornerstone of hemodynamic assessment. Noninvasive technologies are increasingly used in children. This study compared SV measurements obtained by transcutaneous Doppler ultrasound techniques (ultrasonic cardiac output monitor [USCOM]), transthoracic echocardiography jugular (TTE-J), and parasternal (TTE-P) views performed by pediatric intensivists (OP-As) with limited training in cardiac sonography (20 previous examinations) and pediatric cardiologists (OP-Bs) with limited training in USCOM (30 previous examinations) in spontaneously ventilating children. METHODS: A single-center study was conducted in 37 children. Each operator obtained 3 sets of USCOM SV measurements within a period of 3 to 5 minutes, followed with TTE measurements from both apical and jugular views. The investigators were blinded to each other's results to prevent visual and auditory bias. RESULTS: Both USCOM and TTE methods were applicable in 89% of patients. The intraobserver variability of USCOM, TTE-J, and TTE-P were less than 10% in both investigators. The SV measurements by OP-As using USCOM, TTE-J, and TTE-P were 46.15 (25.48) mL, 39.45 (20.65) mL, and 33.42 (16.69) mL, respectively. The SV measurements by OP-Bs using USCOM, TTE-J, and TTE-P were 43.99 (25.24) mL, 38.91 (19.98) mL, and 37.58 (19.81) mL, respectively.The percentage error in SV with USCOM relative to TTE-J was 36% in OP-As and 37% in OP-Bs. The percentage error in SV with TTE-P was 33% relative to TTE-J in OP-As and 21% in OP-Bs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that the methods are not interchangeable because SV values by USCOM are higher in comparison with the SV values obtained by TTE. Both methods have low level of intraobserver variability. The SV measurements obtained by TTE-P were significantly lower compared with the TTE-J for the operator with limited training in echocardiography. The TTE-P requires longer practice compared with the TTE-J; therefore, we recommend to prefer TTE-J to TTE-P for inexperienced operators.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a dítě $7 D002648
- 650 _2
- $a tepový objem $7 D013318
- 650 12
- $a ultrazvuk $7 D014465
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 _2
- $a minutový srdeční výdej $7 D002302
- 650 12
- $a echokardiografie $x metody $7 D004452
- 650 _2
- $a monitorování fyziologických funkcí $x metody $7 D008991
- 655 _2
- $a pozorovací studie $7 D064888
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Huml, Michal
- 700 1_
- $a Pomahacova, Tereza
- 700 1_
- $a Kobr, Jiri
- 700 1_
- $a Kormunda, Stanislav
- 700 1_
- $a Sykora, Josef
- 773 0_
- $w MED00003729 $t Pediatric emergency care $x 1535-1815 $g Roč. 39, č. 9 (2023), s. 680-684
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37478016 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20231013 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20231026110001 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2000083 $s 1202713
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2023 $b 39 $c 9 $d 680-684 $e 20230722 $i 1535-1815 $m Pediatric emergency care $n Pediatr Emerg Care $x MED00003729
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20231013