HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 105/6/1822    most recent 90430.2008v1 Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kemps, H. M. C. Articles by Doevendans, P. A. F. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kemps, H. M. C. Articles by Doevendans, P. A. F. M.

Evaluation of two methods for continuous cardiac output assessment during exercise in chronic heart failure patients

Departments of ¹Sports Medicine and of ²Cardiology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven; ³Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven; ⁴Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Section of Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht; ⁵Department of Medical Physics, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven; ⁶Department of Applied Physics, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven; and ⁷Department of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Submitted 20 March 2008 ; accepted in final form 16 October 2008

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of two techniques for the continuous assessment of cardiac output in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF): a radial artery pulse contour analysis method that uses an indicator dilution method for calibration (LiDCO) and an impedance cardiography technique (Physioflow), using the Fick method as a reference. Ten male CHF patients (New York Heart Association class II–III) were included. At rest, cardiac output values obtained by LiDCO and Physioflow were compared with those of the direct Fick method. During exercise, the continuous Fick method was used as a reference. Exercise, performed on a cycle ergometer in upright position, consisted of two constant-load tests at 30% and 80% of the ventilatory threshold and a symptom-limited maximal test. Both at rest and during exercise LiDCO showed good agreement with reference values [bias ± limits of agreement (LOA), –1% ± 28% and 2% ± 28%, respectively]. In contrast, Physioflow overestimated reference values both at rest and during exercise (bias ± LOA, 48% ± 60% and 48% ± 52%, respectively). Exercise-related within-patient changes of cardiac output, expressed as a percent change, showed for both techniques clinically acceptable agreement with reference values (bias ± LOA: 2% ± 26% for LiDCO, and –2% ± 36% for Physioflow, respectively). In conclusion, although the limits of agreement with the Fick method are pretty broad, LiDCO provides accurate measurements of cardiac output during rest and exercise in CHF patients. Although Physioflow overestimates cardiac output, this method may still be useful to estimate relative changes during exercise.

cycle ergometry; circulatory dysfunction; hemodynamic response