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.

From the Department of Pediatrics Faculty Hospital Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen Charles University Prague Prague Czech Republic

See more in PubMed

Saugel B, Malbrain ML, Perel A. Hemodynamic monitoring in the era of evidence-based medicine. Crit Care. 2016;20:401. PubMed PMC

Hiemstra B Eck RJ Keus F, et al. . Clinical examination for diagnosing circulatory shock. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2017;23:293–301. PubMed PMC

Tibby SM Hatherill M Marsh MJ, et al. . Clinicians' abilities to estimate cardiac index in ventilated children and infants. Arch Dis Child. 2017;77:516–518. PubMed PMC

Saugel B Ringmaier S Holzapfel K, et al. . Physical examination, central venous pressure, and chest radiography for the prediction of transpulmonary thermodilution-derived hemodynamic parameters in critically ill patients: a prospective trial. J Crit Care. 2011;26:402–410. PubMed

Razavi A Newth CJL Khemani RG, et al. . Cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance: clinical assessment compared with a noninvasive objective measurement in children with shock. J Crit Care. 2017;39:6–10. PubMed

Vincent JL Rhodes A Perel A, et al. . Clinical review: update on hemodynamic monitoring—a consensus of 16. Crit Care. 2011;15:229. PubMed PMC

Dhanani S Barrowman NJ Ward RE, et al. . Intra- and inter-observer reliability using a noninvasive ultrasound cardiac output monitor in healthy anesthetized children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2011;21:858–864. PubMed

Hodgson LE Venn R Forni LG, et al. . Measuring the cardiac output in acute emergency admissions: use of the non-invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) with determination of the learning curve and inter-rater reliability. J Intensive Care Soc. 2016;17:122–128. PubMed PMC

Nguyen HB Banta DP Stewart G, et al. . Cardiac index measurements by transcutaneous Doppler ultrasound and transthoracic echocardiography in adult and pediatric emergency patients. J Clin Monit Comput. 2010;24:237–247. PubMed

Wongsirimetheekul T, Khositseth A, Lertbunrian R. Non-invasive cardiac output assessment in critically ill paediatric patients. Acta Cardiol. 2014;69:167–173. PubMed

Porter TR Shillcutt SK Adams MS, et al. . Guidelines for the use of echocardiography as a monitor for therapeutic intervention in adults: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28:40–56. PubMed

Chong SW, Peyton PJ. A meta-analysis of the accuracy and precision of the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM). Anaesthesia. 2012;67:1266–1271. PubMed

Mercado P Maizel J Beyls C, et al. . Transthoracic echocardiography: an accurate and precise method for estimating cardiac output in the critically ill patient. Crit Care. 2017;21:136. PubMed PMC

Zhang Y Wang Y Shi J, et al. . Cardiac output measurements via echocardiography versus thermodilution: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0222105. PubMed PMC

Chan CP Cheung PL Man Tse M, et al. . Influence of different positions on hemodynamics derived from noninvasive transcutaneous Doppler ultrasound. Physiol Rep. 2013;1:e00062. PubMed PMC

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

Gaspar HA Morhy SS Lianza AC, et al. . Focused cardiac ultrasound: a training course for pediatric intensivists and emergency physicians. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:25. PubMed PMC

Russell A Rivers EP Giri PC, et al. . A physiologic approach to hemodynamic monitoring and optimizing oxygen delivery in shock resuscitation. J Clin Med. 2020;9:2052. PubMed PMC

Singh Y Villaescusa JU da Cruz EM, et al. . Recommendations for hemodynamic monitoring for critically ill children-expert consensus statement issued by the cardiovascular dynamics section of the European Society of Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC). Crit Care. 2020;24:620. PubMed PMC