Evaluation of a cardiac output monitor

Paradise Lost and the Cosmological Revolution

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 120-131

  Critchley, Lester A H ^a  

^a CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84953385787     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107257115.015     Document Type: Chapter

References (22)

1. Marik PE. Noninvasive cardiac output monitors: a state-of the-art review. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2013; 27: 121-34.
2. Bein B, Renner J, Scholz J, Tonner PH. Comparing different methods of cardiac output determination: a call for consensus. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2006; 23: 710.
3. Bernstein DP. Continuous noninvasive real-time monitoring of stroke volume and cardiac output by thoracic electrical bioimpedance. Crit Care Med 1986; 14(10): 898-901.
4. Critchley LA, Huang L. USCOM - Window to the circulation: utility of supra-sternal Doppler in an elderly anaesthetized patient for a robotic cystectomy. J Clin Monit Comput 2014; 28(1): 83-93.
5. Koo KK, Sun JC, Zhou Q, Pulmonary artery catheters: evolving rates and reasons for use. Crit Care Med 2011; 39: 1613-18.
6. Critchley LA, Lee A, Ho AM. A critical review of the ability of continuous cardiac output monitors to measure trends in cardiac output. Anesth. Analg 2010; 111: 1180-92.
7. Nidorf SM, Picard MH, Triulzi MO, New perspectives in the assessment of cardiac chamber dimensions during development and adulthood. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 19: 983-8.
8. Chong SW, Peyton PJ. A metaanalysis of the accuracy and precision of the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM). Anaesthesia 2012; 67: 1266-71.
9. 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.
10. LaMantia KR, O'Connor T, Barash PG: Comparing methods of measurement: an alternative approach. Anesthesiology 1990; 72: 781-3.
11. Wong DH, Tremper KK, Stemmer EA, Noninvasive cardiac output: Simultaneous comparison of two different methods with thermodilution. Anesthesiology 1990; 72: 784-92.
12. Stetz CW, Miller RG, Kelly GE, Raffin TA. Reliability of the thermodilution method in the determination of cardiac output in clinical practice. Am Rev Resp Dis 1982; 126: 1001-4.
13. Yang XX, Critchley LA, Joynt GM. Determination of the measurement error of the pulmonary artery thermodilution catheter using in-vitro continuous flow test rig. Anesth Analg 2011; 112: 70-7.
14. 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.
15. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 (8476): 307-10.
16. Bland JM, Altman DG. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat 2007; 17: 571-82.
17. Myles PS, Cui J. Using the Bland- Altman method to measure agreement with repeated measures. Brit J Anaesth 2007; 99: 309-11.
18. Perrino AC, O'Connor T, Luther M. Transtracheal Doppler cardiac output monitoring: comparison to thermodilution during noncardiac surgery. Anesth Analg 1994; 78: 1060-6.
19. Perrino AC, Harris SN, Luther MA. Intraoperative determination of cardiac output using multiplane transesophageal echocardiography: a comparison to thermodilution. Anesthesiology 1998; 89: 350-7.
20. Critchley LA, Yang XX, Lee A. Assessment of trending ability of cardiac output monitors by polar plot methodology. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2011; 25: 536-46.
21. Biancofiore G, Critchley LA, Lee A, Evaluation of an uncalibrated arterial pulse contour cardiac output monitoring system in cirrhotic patients undergoing liver surgery. Brit J Anaesth 2009; 102: 47-54.
22. Critchley LAH, Peng ZY, Fok BS, Testing the reliability of a new ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, the USCOM using aortic flow probes in anaesthetized dogs. Anesth Analg 2005; 100: 748-53.