• Frederik Trinkmann, Manuel Berger, Ursula Hoffmann, Martin Borggrefe, Jens J Kaden, and Joachim Saur.
• First Department of Medicine (Cardiology, Angiology, Pneumology, Intensive Care), Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Germany.
• Clin Res Cardiol. 2011 Oct 1;100(10):935-43.

BackgroundWhen assessing the function of the cardiovascular system, cardiac output (CO) is a substantial parameter. For its determination, numerous non-invasive techniques have been proposed in the recent years including inert gas rebreathing (IGR) and impedance cardiography (ICG). The aim of our study was to evaluate whether a novel ICG algorithm (electrical velocimetry) and IGR can be used interchangeably in the clinical setting.MethodsA total of 120 consecutive stable patients were included resulting in two pairs of repeated non-invasive cardiac output measurements.ResultsThe mean CO was 5.0 ± 1.2 l/min (range 2.6-8.6 l/min) using IGR and 4.4 ± 1.1 l/min (1.7-7.4 l/min) using ICG, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis revealed an acceptable agreement with a mean bias of 0.6 ± 1.2 l/min. We found a high reproducibility with a mean bias of 0.2 ± 0.7 l/min for IGR and 0.0 ± 0.3 l/min for ICG (p < 0.001), respectively. There was a statistically significant difference for unphysiological circulatory conditions represented by values of 2.6-4.1 l/min and 5.6-8.6 l/min.ConclusionsBoth non-invasive techniques are associated with low operating costs and require only a few expendable items for the rapid determination of cardiac function. We found an acceptable agreement between IGR and ICG as well as a high reproducibility, which was statistically significant higher for ICG. For cardiac output states exceeding the physiological range, we found a statistically significant difference. Consequently, values of cardiac function determined by either method should not be used interchangeably in the clinical setting.

29 keywords...

hide…