• Alicia Gonzalez-Represas and Laurent Mourot.
• Department Functional Biology and Health Sciences, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain.
• Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Mar 1; 36 (3): 447-455.

AbstractGiven the increasing use of noninvasive techniques for the assessment of cardiac function in clinical practice, the aim of this study was to evaluate if stroke volume (SV) and cardiac output (CO) measurements obtained by PhysioFlow impedance cardiography or HDI CR-2000 pulse wave analysis (Pulse) are interchangeable with measurements obtained by echocardiography in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or heart failure (HF). The study involved 48 men with heart disease (CAD or HF). We compared SV and CO measurements with the three devices at rest, as well as relative changes in SV and CO derived from a rehabilitation program. SV and CO measurements were carried out first by echocardiography and immediately after using tonometry and impedancemetry techniques simultaneously. The Bland-Altman analysis showed a significant bias in the measurement of absolute SV and CO values with Pulse and PhysioFlow. Four quadrant plot and polar plot analysis of relative change SV between Pulse and echocardiography show a rate of concordance of 77% (95% CI 60-88%) and 79% (95% CI 63-89%) respectively. The polar plot analysis showed a mean polar angle of 34° ± 22°, and a 30° radial sector containing 52% of the data points. Both Pulse and PhysioFlow devices overestimate absolute SV and CO values compared to values recorded using echocardiography. Similarly, neither Pulse nor PhysioFlow reliably track SV or CO changes after a rehabilitation program compared with echocardiography.

24 keywords...

hide…