Investigation of the accuracy of the cardiac output measurement using two different minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring system
Not Applicable
- Conditions
- cardiovascular disease
- Registration Number
- JPRN-UMIN000023313
- Lead Sponsor
- Tohoku University Hospital department of anesthesiology
- Brief Summary
Twenty-nine patients were enrolled. Compared with CITD, CIFT and CILR had a percentage error (PE) of 39.9% and 51.2%, respectively. The accuracy of CIFT or CILR is not clinically acceptable. Fourth-generation Flotrac was unreliable in high-SVRI. LiDCOrapid was inaccurate across a broad range of SVRI and minimally affected by SVRI.
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- Complete: follow-up complete
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 29
Inclusion Criteria
Not provided
Exclusion Criteria
withdrawal of consent moderate or more aortic valve stenosis or regurgitation intra aortic balloon pumping extracorporeal membrane system left ventricular assist device thoracic aorta placement moderate or more tricuspid regurgitation low cardiac output
Study & Design
- Study Type
- Observational
- Study Design
- Not specified
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method