A meta-analysis of the accuracy and precision of the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM)

Anaesthesia

Volumn 67, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1266-1271

  Chong, S W ^a   Peyton, P J ^a,b  

^a AUSTIN HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR EQUIPMENT; DOPPLER DEVICE; HEART OUTPUT; HEART SURGERY; HEMODYNAMIC MONITORING; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMAN; INTENSIVE CARE; META ANALYSIS; MINIMALLY INVASIVE PROCEDURE; NON INVASIVE MEASUREMENT; PATIENT MONITORING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THERMODILUTION; ULTRASONIC CARDIAC OUTPUT MONITOR;

CARDIAC OUTPUT; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY, DOPPLER; HUMANS; MONITORING, INTRAOPERATIVE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; THERMODILUTION;

EID: 84867205980     PISSN: 00032409     EISSN: 13652044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07311.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Abbas SM, Hill AG,. Systematic review of the literature for the use of oesophageal doppler monitor for fluid replacement in major abdominal surgery. Anaesthesia 2008; 63: 44-51.
2. Bundgaard-Nielsen M, Holte K, Secher N, Kehlet H,. Monitoring of peri-operative fluid administration by individualized goal-directed therapy. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2007; 51: 331-40.
3. Funk DJ, Moretti EW, Gan TJ,. Minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring in the perioperative setting. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2009; 108: 887-97.
4. Feldman JM,. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? The role of patient monitors in medical decision making. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2009; 108: 707-10.
5. Thom O, Taylor DM, Wolfe RE, et al., Comparison of a supra-sternal cardiac output monitor (USCOM) with the pulmonary artery catheter. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2009; 103: 800-4.
6. Arora D, Chand R, Mehta Y, Trehan N,. Cardiac output estimation after off-pump coronary artery bypass: a comparison of two different techniques. Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia 2007; 10: 132-6.
7. Boyle M, Steel L, Flynn GM, et al., Assessment of the clinical utility of an ultrasonic monitor of cardiac output (the USCOM) and agreement with thermodilution measurement. Critical Care and Resuscitation 2009; 11: 198-203.
8. Chand R, Mehta Y, Trehan N,. Cardiac output estimation with a new Doppler device after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia 2006; 20: 315-9.
9. Corley A, Barnett AG, Mullany D, Fraser JF,. Nurse-determined assessment of cardiac output comparing a non-invasive cardiac output device and pulmonary artery catheter: a prospective observational study. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2009; 46: 1291-7.
10. 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 Medicine 2008; 34: 1060-4.
11. Su BC, Yu HP, Yang MW, et al., Reliability of a new ultrasonic cardiac output monitor in recipients of living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transplantation 2008; 14: 1029-37.
12. 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. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2005; 94: 287-91.
13. 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. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care 2007; 35: 903-10.
14. Wong LS, Yong BH, Young KK, et al., Comparison of the USCOM ultrasound cardiac output monitor with pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Liver Transplantation 2008; 14: 1038-43.
15. Bland JM, Altman DG,. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; i: 307-10.
16. Bland JM, Altman DG,. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 1999; 8: 135-60.
17. Critchley LAH, Critchley JA,. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 1999; 15: 85-91.
18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, the Prisma Group,. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 2009; 151: 264-9.
19. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al., The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001; 134: 663-94.
20. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG,. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001; 357: 1191-4.
21. Peyton PJ, Chong SW,. Minimally invasive measurement of cardiac output during surgery and critical care: a meta-analysis of accuracy and precision. Anesthesiology 2010; 113: 1220-35.
22. Myles PS, Cui J,. Using the Bland Altman method to measure agreement with repeated measures. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007; 99: 309-11.
23. Bland JM, Altman DG, Bland JM, Altman DG,. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2007; 17: 571-82.
24. Bajorat J, Hofmockel R, Vagts DA, et al., Comparison of invasive and less-invasive techniques of cardiac output measurement under different haemodynamic conditions in a pig model. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 2006; 23: 23-30.
25. Botero M, Kirby D, Lobato EB, et al., Measurement of cardiac output before and after cardiopulmonary bypass: comparison among aortic transit-time ultrasound, thermodilution, and noninvasive partial CO2 rebreathing. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia 2004; 18: 563-72.
26. Dey I, Sprivulis P,. Emergency physicians can reliably assess emergency department patient cardiac output using the USCOM continuous wave Doppler cardiac output monitor. Emergency Medicine Australasia 2005; 17: 193-9.
27. Phillips RA,. Assessment of the clinical utility of an ultrasonic monitor of cardiac output (the USCOM) and agreement with thermodilution measurement. Critical Care and Resuscitation 2010; 12: 209-10.
28. Bein B, Renner J, Scholz J, Tonner PH,. Comparing different methods of cardiac output determination: a call for consensus. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 2006; 23: 710.
29. Linton NW, Linton RA, Linton NWF, Linton RAF,. Is comparison of changes in cardiac output, assessed by different methods, better than only comparing cardiac output to the reference method? British Journal of Anaesthesia 2002; 89: 336-7.