Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Clinical Cardiology logoLink to Clinical Cardiology
. 2009 Dec 30;33(2):E8–E14. doi: 10.1002/clc.20612

A Novel Noninvasive Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor: Comparison With Cardiac Magnetic Resonance

Frederik Trinkmann 1, Christina Doesch 1, Theano Papavassiliu 1, Joerg Weissmann 1, Dariusch Haghi 1, Joachim Gruettner 1, Stefan O Schoenberg 2, Martin Borggrefe 1, Jens J Kaden 1, Joachim Saur 1,✉
PMCID: PMC6653547  PMID: 20043339

Abstract

Background

USCOM, a novel continuous wave Doppler (CWD) device, has been introduced for noninvasive determination of cardiac output (CO). The present study aimed to compare the accuracy and reproducibility of the new device, using cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) as the noninvasive gold standard.

Methods and Results

The CO of 56 consecutive patients was prospectively determined by CWD either before or after CMR imaging. The CWD probe was placed in the suprasternal or supraclavicular notch aiming at the aortic valve. Valid CWD signals could be obtained in 45 patients yielding a CO of 5.3±1.1 L/min (range, 3.0–7.5 L/min) by CMR and 4.7±1.1 L/min by CWD (2.5–8.0 L/min, P = .004), respectively. CWD measurements showed an acceptable agreement with CMR (bias: 0.6±1.1 L/min) and a high reproducibility (bias: 0.1±0.4 L/min). Higher CO and body mass index (BMI) were identified as sources of inaccuracy in univariate analysis. By multivariate analysis, only COCMR was found to be independently associated with larger variation. Estimated diameters of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), a prerequisite for CO measurement by CWD, correlated only weakly with those measured by CMR.

Conclusions

Continuous wave Doppler is a feasible technique for measuring cardiac function. Although the overall agreement with CMR was acceptable, CWD showed a trend to underestimate CO. The estimated LVOT diameter by CWD is likely to be an important source of error. Nevertheless, the CWD device could be of clinical use especially for detection of intraindividual hemodynamic changes since a high reproducibility could be demonstrated. Copyright © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (515.6 KB).

References

  • 1. Connors AF Jr, Speroff T, Dawson NV, et al. The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT Investigators. JAMA 1996; 276: 889–897. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Pohost GM, Hung L, Doyle M. Clinical use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Circulation 2003; 108: 647–653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Pennell D. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Heart 2001; 85: 581–589. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Appel PL, Kram HB, Mackabee J, Fleming AW, Shoemaker WC. Comparison of measurements of cardiac output by bioimpedance and thermodilution in severely ill surgical patients. Crit Care Med 1986; 14: 933–935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Franko E, Van De Water J, Wang X. Ideal measurement of cardiac output: is impedance cardiography the answer? Vasc Endovascular Surg 1991; 25: 550–558. [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Scherhag A, Kaden JJ, Kentschke E, Sueselbeck T, Borggrefe M. Comparison of impedance cardiography and thermodilution‐derived measurements of stroke volume and cardiac output at rest and during exercise testing. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2005; 19: 141–147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Agostoni P, Cattadori G, Apostolo A, et al. Noninvasive measurement of cardiac output during exercise by inert gas rebreathing technique: a new tool for heart failure evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 1779–1781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Dong L, Wang JA, Jiang CY. Validation of the use of foreign gas rebreathing method for non‐invasive determination of cardiac output in heart disease patients. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2005; 6: 1157–1162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Reutershan J, Kapp T, Unertl K, Fretschner R. [Noninvasive determination of cardiac output in ventilated patients. Clinical evaluation of a simplified quick method]. Article in German. Anaesthesist 2003; 52: 778–786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Christensen P, Clemensen P, Andersen PK, Henneberg SW. Thermodilution versus inert gas rebreathing for estimation of effective pulmonary blood flow. Crit Care Med 2000; 28: 51–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Saur J, Trinkmann F, Weissmann J, Borggrefe M, Kaden JJ. Non‐invasive determination of cardiac output: comparison of a novel CW Doppler ultrasonic technique and inert gas rebreathing. Int J Cardiol 2008. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2008.04.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Knobloch K, Lichtenberg A, Winterhalter M, Rossner D, Pichlmaier M, Phillips R. Non‐invasive cardiac output determination by two‐dimensional independent Doppler during and after cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80: 1479–1483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Tan HL, Pinder M, Parsons R, Roberts B, van Heerden PV. Clinical evaluation of USCOM ultrasonic cardiac output monitor in cardiac surgical patients in intensive care unit. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94: 287–291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Van den Oever HL, Murphy EJ, Christie‐Taylor GA. USCOM (Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitors) lacks agreement with thermodilution cardiac output and transoesophageal echocardiography valve measurements. Anaesth Intensive Care 2007; 35: 903–910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Knirsch W, Kretschmar O, Tomaske M, et al. Cardiac output measurement in children: comparison of the ultrasound cardiac output monitor with thermodilution cardiac output measurement. Intensive Care Med 2008; 34: 1060–1064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Chan JS, Segara D, Nair P. Measurement of cardiac output with a non‐invasive continuous wave Doppler device versus the pulmonary artery catheter: a comparative study. Crit Care Resusc 2006; 8: 309–314. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. 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. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Dhingra VK, Fenwick JC, Walley KR, Chittock DR, Ronco JJ. Lack of agreement between thermodilution and fick cardiac output in critically ill patients. Chest 2002; 122: 990–997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Nidorf SM, Picard MH, Triulzi MO, et al. New perspectives in the assessment of cardiac chamber dimensions during development and adulthood. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 19: 983–988. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Papavassiliu T, Kuhl HP, Schroder M, et al. Effect of endocardial trabeculae on left ventricular measurements and measurement reproducibility at cardiovascular MR imaging. Radiology 2005; 236: 57–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. 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. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Knobloch K, Hoeltke V, Jakob E, Vogt PM, Phillips R. Non‐invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitoring in exercise testing. Int J Cardiol 2008; 126: 445–447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Kaukinen S, Koobi T, Bi Y, Turjanmaa VM. Cardiac output measurement after coronary artery bypass grafting using bolus thermodilution, continuous thermodilution, and whole‐body impedance cardiography. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2003; 17: 199–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Van De Water JM, Miller TW, Vogel RL, Mount BE, Dalton ML. Impedance cardiography: the next vital sign technology? Chest 2003; 123: 2028–2033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinical Cardiology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES