Non-Invasive Haemodynamic Monitoring in Pregnancy: A Comparative Study Using Ultrasound and Bioreactance

Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 273-282

  Vinayagam, Dimuthu ^a   Bowe, Sophie ^a   Sheehan, Elaine ^a   Thilaganathan, Basky ^a   Khalil, Asma ^a  

^a ST GEORGE'S UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bioreactance; NICOM ; Non invasive cardiac output monitoring; Pregnancy; USCOM

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY SURFACE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOPPLER DEVICE; FEMALE; HEART INDEX; HEART OUTPUT MEASUREMENT; HEART RATE; HEART STROKE VOLUME; HEMODYNAMIC MONITORING; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL HYPERTENSION; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; THIRD TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; VASCULAR RESISTANCE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; HEART OUTPUT; HYPERTENSION; PROCEDURES; REFERENCE VALUE;

ADULT; CARDIAC OUTPUT; FEMALE; HEMODYNAMIC MONITORING; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REFERENCE VALUES; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 84990181082     PISSN: 10153837     EISSN: 14219964     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000446650     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Duvekot JJ, Peeters LL: Maternal cardiovascular hemodynamic adaptation to pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1994; 49:S1.
2. Knight M, Kenyon S, Brocklehurst P, Neilson J, Shakespeare J, Kurinczuk JJ: Saving Lives, Improving Mothers Care-Lessons learned to inform future maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2009-2012. Oxford, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, 2014.
3. Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B: Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest 2008; 134: 172-178.
4. Ackerman WE, Porembka DT, Juneja MM, Kaczorowski DM: Use of a pulmonary artery catheter in the management of the severe preeclamptic patient. Anesthesiol Rev 1991; 17: 37-40.
5. Ueland K, Gills R, Hansen J, Wyant GM: Maternal cardiovascular dynamics. 1. Cesarean section under subarachnoid block anesthesia. Surv Anesthesiol 1969; 13: 67-70.
6. 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.
7. 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: 1180-1192.
8. Tranquilli AL, Dekker G, Magee L, Roberts J, Sibai BM, Steyn W, et al: The classification, diagnosis and management of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a revised statement from the ISSHP. Pregnancy Hypertens 2014; 4: 97-104.
9. Funk DJ, Moretti EW, Gan TJ: Minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring in the perioperative setting. Anesth Analg 2009; 108: 887-897.
10. McNamara H, Barclay P, Sharma V: Accuracy and precision of the ultrasound cardiac output monitor (USCOM 1A) in pregnancy: comparison with three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography. Br J Anaesth 2014; 113: 669-676.
11. Chong SW, Peyton PJ: A meta-analysis of the accuracy and precision of the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM). Anaesthesia 2012; 67: 1266-1271.
12. Knirsch W, Kretschmar O, Tomaske M, Stutz K, Nagdyman N, Balmer C, 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.
13. Kupersztych-Hagege E, Teboul JL, Artigas A, Talbot A, Sabatier C, Richard C, et al: Bioreactance is not reliable for estimating cardiac output and the effects of passive leg raising in critically ill patients. Br J Anaesth 2013; 111: 961-966.
14. Tan H, Pinder M, Parsons R, Roberts B, Van Heerden P: Clinical evaluation of USCOM ultrasonic cardiac output monitor in cardiac surgical patients in intensive care unit. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94: 287-291.