Cardiac output measurements via echocardiography versus thermodilution: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Echocardiography, as a noninvasive hemodynamic evaluation technique, is frequently used in critically ill patients. Different opinions exist regarding whether it can be interchanged with traditional invasive means, such as the pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution (TD) technique. This systematic...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2019-10, Vol.14 (10), p.e0222105-e0222105 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0222105 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | e0222105 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | Zhang, Yun Wang, Yan Shi, Jing Hua, Zhiqiang Xu, Jinyu |
| description | Echocardiography, as a noninvasive hemodynamic evaluation technique, is frequently used in critically ill patients. Different opinions exist regarding whether it can be interchanged with traditional invasive means, such as the pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution (TD) technique. This systematic review aimed to analyze the consistency and interchangeability of cardiac output measurements by ultrasound (US) and TD. Five electronic databases were searched for studies including clinical trials conducted up to June 2019 in which patients' cardiac output was measured by ultrasound techniques (echocardiography) and TD. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers who used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), which was tailored according to our systematic review in Review Manager 5.3. A total of 68 studies with 1996 patients were identified as eligible. Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were used to compare the cardiac output (CO) measured using the different types of echocardiography and different sites of Doppler use with TD. No significant differences were found between US and TD (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.14; 95% confidence interval, -0.30 to 0.02; P = 0.08). No significant differences were observed in the subgroup analyses using different types of echocardiography and different sites except for ascending aorta (AA) (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.37; 95% confidence interval, -0.74 to -0.01; P = 0.05) of Doppler use. The median of bias and limits of agreement were -0.12 and ±0.94 L/min, respectively; the median of correlation coefficient was 0.827 (range, 0.140-0.998). Although the difference in CO between echocardiography by different types or sites and TD was not entirely consistent, the overall effect of meta-analysis showed that no significant differences were observed between US and TD. The techniques may be interchangeable under certain conditions. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0222105 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2300607334</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A601625545</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_68bb2c40d63644a3abe2acd26f01399a</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A601625545</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2dc2a1b96e823846302c32915df0f9a43722cd82be9a242410f91e5e56ddea23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk1uL1DAUx4so7rr6DUQLgujDjLm0mdYHYRi8DCws6OJrOE1OZ7K0zZiko_PtTXe6y1T2QfKQcPI7_3NJTpK8pGRO-YJ-uLG966CZ72yHc8IYoyR_lJzTkrOZYIQ_PjmfJc-8vyEk54UQT5MzTvOC0lKcJ-0KnDagUtuHXR_SFsH3Dlvsgk_3BlJUW6sGxm4c7LaHdI_O9z4NW3St1abpg7Hdx3SZ-oMP2EIwKnW4N_g7hU5HwQAziIkevPHPkyc1NB5fjPtFcv3l8_Xq2-zy6ut6tbycKVGyMGNaMaBVKbBgvMgEJ0xxVtJc16QuIeMLxpQuWIUlsIxlNFop5pgLrREYv0heH2V3jfVybJSXjBMiyILzLBLrI6Et3MidMy24g7Rg5K3Buo0EFytpUIqiqpjKiBZcZBlwqJCB0kzUhPKyhKj1aYzWVy1qFVvnoJmITm86s5Ubu5disRC8HNJ9Nwo4-6tHH2RrvMKmgQ5tf5s3zTgpiwF98w_6cHUjtYFYgOlqG-OqQVQuBaGC5XmWR2r-ABWXxtao-KtqE-0Th_cTh8gE_BM20Hsv1z--_z979XPKvj1htwhN2Hp7_Fh-CmZHUDnrvcP6vsmUyGEo7rohh6GQ41BEt1enD3TvdDcF_C8tKAhT</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2300607334</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cardiac output measurements via echocardiography versus thermodilution: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Zhang, Yun ; Wang, Yan ; Shi, Jing ; Hua, Zhiqiang ; Xu, Jinyu</creator><contributor>Lionetti, Vincenzo</contributor><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Yun ; Wang, Yan ; Shi, Jing ; Hua, Zhiqiang ; Xu, Jinyu ; Lionetti, Vincenzo</creatorcontrib><description>Echocardiography, as a noninvasive hemodynamic evaluation technique, is frequently used in critically ill patients. Different opinions exist regarding whether it can be interchanged with traditional invasive means, such as the pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution (TD) technique. This systematic review aimed to analyze the consistency and interchangeability of cardiac output measurements by ultrasound (US) and TD. Five electronic databases were searched for studies including clinical trials conducted up to June 2019 in which patients' cardiac output was measured by ultrasound techniques (echocardiography) and TD. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers who used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), which was tailored according to our systematic review in Review Manager 5.3. A total of 68 studies with 1996 patients were identified as eligible. Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were used to compare the cardiac output (CO) measured using the different types of echocardiography and different sites of Doppler use with TD. No significant differences were found between US and TD (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.14; 95% confidence interval, -0.30 to 0.02; P = 0.08). No significant differences were observed in the subgroup analyses using different types of echocardiography and different sites except for ascending aorta (AA) (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.37; 95% confidence interval, -0.74 to -0.01; P = 0.05) of Doppler use. The median of bias and limits of agreement were -0.12 and ±0.94 L/min, respectively; the median of correlation coefficient was 0.827 (range, 0.140-0.998). Although the difference in CO between echocardiography by different types or sites and TD was not entirely consistent, the overall effect of meta-analysis showed that no significant differences were observed between US and TD. The techniques may be interchangeable under certain conditions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222105</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31581196</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Aorta ; Bias ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Cardiac function ; Cardiac output ; Cardiac Output - physiology ; Cardiac patients ; Catheters ; Clinical trials ; Confidence intervals ; Correlation coefficient ; Correlation coefficients ; Critically ill persons ; Diagnostic systems ; Echocardiography ; Echocardiography, Doppler ; Emergency medical care ; Health aspects ; Heart ; Heart failure ; Heart rate ; Hemodynamics ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Intensive care ; Liver ; Measurement techniques ; Medical instruments ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Meta-analysis ; Methods ; Patients ; Physical Sciences ; Publication Bias ; Pulmonary arteries ; Pulmonary artery ; Quality assessment ; Quality control ; Regression Analysis ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Risk ; Studies ; Subgroups ; Systematic review ; Thermodilution ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasonic methods ; Ultrasonic testing ; Veins & arteries</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2019-10, Vol.14 (10), p.e0222105-e0222105</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2019 Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2019 Zhang et al 2019 Zhang et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2dc2a1b96e823846302c32915df0f9a43722cd82be9a242410f91e5e56ddea23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2dc2a1b96e823846302c32915df0f9a43722cd82be9a242410f91e5e56ddea23</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7313-5502</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6776392/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6776392/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31581196$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Lionetti, Vincenzo</contributor><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Yun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shi, Jing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hua, Zhiqiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Jinyu</creatorcontrib><title>Cardiac output measurements via echocardiography versus thermodilution: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Echocardiography, as a noninvasive hemodynamic evaluation technique, is frequently used in critically ill patients. Different opinions exist regarding whether it can be interchanged with traditional invasive means, such as the pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution (TD) technique. This systematic review aimed to analyze the consistency and interchangeability of cardiac output measurements by ultrasound (US) and TD. Five electronic databases were searched for studies including clinical trials conducted up to June 2019 in which patients' cardiac output was measured by ultrasound techniques (echocardiography) and TD. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers who used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), which was tailored according to our systematic review in Review Manager 5.3. A total of 68 studies with 1996 patients were identified as eligible. Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were used to compare the cardiac output (CO) measured using the different types of echocardiography and different sites of Doppler use with TD. No significant differences were found between US and TD (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.14; 95% confidence interval, -0.30 to 0.02; P = 0.08). No significant differences were observed in the subgroup analyses using different types of echocardiography and different sites except for ascending aorta (AA) (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.37; 95% confidence interval, -0.74 to -0.01; P = 0.05) of Doppler use. The median of bias and limits of agreement were -0.12 and ±0.94 L/min, respectively; the median of correlation coefficient was 0.827 (range, 0.140-0.998). Although the difference in CO between echocardiography by different types or sites and TD was not entirely consistent, the overall effect of meta-analysis showed that no significant differences were observed between US and TD. The techniques may be interchangeable under certain conditions.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Aorta</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cardiac function</subject><subject>Cardiac output</subject><subject>Cardiac Output - physiology</subject><subject>Cardiac patients</subject><subject>Catheters</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Correlation coefficient</subject><subject>Correlation coefficients</subject><subject>Critically ill persons</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Echocardiography</subject><subject>Echocardiography, Doppler</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Heart</subject><subject>Heart failure</subject><subject>Heart rate</subject><subject>Hemodynamics</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intensive care</subject><subject>Liver</subject><subject>Measurement techniques</subject><subject>Medical instruments</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Publication Bias</subject><subject>Pulmonary arteries</subject><subject>Pulmonary artery</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Regression Analysis</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Subgroups</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Thermodilution</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasonic methods</subject><subject>Ultrasonic testing</subject><subject>Veins & arteries</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk1uL1DAUx4so7rr6DUQLgujDjLm0mdYHYRi8DCws6OJrOE1OZ7K0zZiko_PtTXe6y1T2QfKQcPI7_3NJTpK8pGRO-YJ-uLG966CZ72yHc8IYoyR_lJzTkrOZYIQ_PjmfJc-8vyEk54UQT5MzTvOC0lKcJ-0KnDagUtuHXR_SFsH3Dlvsgk_3BlJUW6sGxm4c7LaHdI_O9z4NW3St1abpg7Hdx3SZ-oMP2EIwKnW4N_g7hU5HwQAziIkevPHPkyc1NB5fjPtFcv3l8_Xq2-zy6ut6tbycKVGyMGNaMaBVKbBgvMgEJ0xxVtJc16QuIeMLxpQuWIUlsIxlNFop5pgLrREYv0heH2V3jfVybJSXjBMiyILzLBLrI6Et3MidMy24g7Rg5K3Buo0EFytpUIqiqpjKiBZcZBlwqJCB0kzUhPKyhKj1aYzWVy1qFVvnoJmITm86s5Ubu5disRC8HNJ9Nwo4-6tHH2RrvMKmgQ5tf5s3zTgpiwF98w_6cHUjtYFYgOlqG-OqQVQuBaGC5XmWR2r-ABWXxtao-KtqE-0Th_cTh8gE_BM20Hsv1z--_z979XPKvj1htwhN2Hp7_Fh-CmZHUDnrvcP6vsmUyGEo7rohh6GQ41BEt1enD3TvdDcF_C8tKAhT</recordid><startdate>20191003</startdate><enddate>20191003</enddate><creator>Zhang, Yun</creator><creator>Wang, Yan</creator><creator>Shi, Jing</creator><creator>Hua, Zhiqiang</creator><creator>Xu, Jinyu</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7313-5502</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20191003</creationdate><title>Cardiac output measurements via echocardiography versus thermodilution: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Zhang, Yun ; Wang, Yan ; Shi, Jing ; Hua, Zhiqiang ; Xu, Jinyu</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2dc2a1b96e823846302c32915df0f9a43722cd82be9a242410f91e5e56ddea23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Aorta</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cardiac function</topic><topic>Cardiac output</topic><topic>Cardiac Output - physiology</topic><topic>Cardiac patients</topic><topic>Catheters</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Correlation coefficient</topic><topic>Correlation coefficients</topic><topic>Critically ill persons</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Echocardiography</topic><topic>Echocardiography, Doppler</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Heart</topic><topic>Heart failure</topic><topic>Heart rate</topic><topic>Hemodynamics</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intensive care</topic><topic>Liver</topic><topic>Measurement techniques</topic><topic>Medical instruments</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Publication Bias</topic><topic>Pulmonary arteries</topic><topic>Pulmonary artery</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Regression Analysis</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Subgroups</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Thermodilution</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasonic methods</topic><topic>Ultrasonic testing</topic><topic>Veins & arteries</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Yun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shi, Jing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hua, Zhiqiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Jinyu</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhang, Yun</au><au>Wang, Yan</au><au>Shi, Jing</au><au>Hua, Zhiqiang</au><au>Xu, Jinyu</au><au>Lionetti, Vincenzo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cardiac output measurements via echocardiography versus thermodilution: A systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2019-10-03</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0222105</spage><epage>e0222105</epage><pages>e0222105-e0222105</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Echocardiography, as a noninvasive hemodynamic evaluation technique, is frequently used in critically ill patients. Different opinions exist regarding whether it can be interchanged with traditional invasive means, such as the pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution (TD) technique. This systematic review aimed to analyze the consistency and interchangeability of cardiac output measurements by ultrasound (US) and TD. Five electronic databases were searched for studies including clinical trials conducted up to June 2019 in which patients' cardiac output was measured by ultrasound techniques (echocardiography) and TD. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers who used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), which was tailored according to our systematic review in Review Manager 5.3. A total of 68 studies with 1996 patients were identified as eligible. Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were used to compare the cardiac output (CO) measured using the different types of echocardiography and different sites of Doppler use with TD. No significant differences were found between US and TD (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.14; 95% confidence interval, -0.30 to 0.02; P = 0.08). No significant differences were observed in the subgroup analyses using different types of echocardiography and different sites except for ascending aorta (AA) (random effects model: mean difference [MD], -0.37; 95% confidence interval, -0.74 to -0.01; P = 0.05) of Doppler use. The median of bias and limits of agreement were -0.12 and ±0.94 L/min, respectively; the median of correlation coefficient was 0.827 (range, 0.140-0.998). Although the difference in CO between echocardiography by different types or sites and TD was not entirely consistent, the overall effect of meta-analysis showed that no significant differences were observed between US and TD. The techniques may be interchangeable under certain conditions.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>31581196</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0222105</doi><tpages>e0222105</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7313-5502</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2019-10, Vol.14 (10), p.e0222105-e0222105 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2300607334 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Analysis Aorta Bias Biology and Life Sciences Cardiac function Cardiac output Cardiac Output - physiology Cardiac patients Catheters Clinical trials Confidence intervals Correlation coefficient Correlation coefficients Critically ill persons Diagnostic systems Echocardiography Echocardiography, Doppler Emergency medical care Health aspects Heart Heart failure Heart rate Hemodynamics Hospitals Humans Intensive care Liver Measurement techniques Medical instruments Medical research Medicine Medicine and Health Sciences Meta-analysis Methods Patients Physical Sciences Publication Bias Pulmonary arteries Pulmonary artery Quality assessment Quality control Regression Analysis Research and Analysis Methods Risk Studies Subgroups Systematic review Thermodilution Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasonic methods Ultrasonic testing Veins & arteries |
| title | Cardiac output measurements via echocardiography versus thermodilution: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T02%3A24%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cardiac%20output%20measurements%20via%20echocardiography%20versus%20thermodilution:%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Zhang,%20Yun&rft.date=2019-10-03&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0222105&rft.epage=e0222105&rft.pages=e0222105-e0222105&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0222105&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA601625545%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2300607334&rft_id=info:pmid/31581196&rft_galeid=A601625545&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_68bb2c40d63644a3abe2acd26f01399a&rfr_iscdi=true |