Comparison of three non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring methods in critically ill children
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 13, Issue: 6, Page: e0199203
2018
- 24Citations
- 72Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations24
- Citation Indexes24
- 24
- Captures72
- Readers72
- 72
Article Description
Introduction Hemodynamic parameters measurements were widely conducted using pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) with thermodilution as a reference standard. Due to its technical difficulties in children, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) has been widely employed instead. Nonetheless, TTE requires expertise and is time-consuming. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring such as ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) and electrical velocimetry (EV) can be performed rapidly with less expertise requirement. Presently, there are inconsistent evidences, variable precision, and reproducibility of EV, USCOM and TTE measurements. Our objective was to compare USCOM, EV and TTE in hemodynamic measurements in critically ill children. Materials and methods This was a single center, prospective observational study in critically ill children. Children with congenital heart diseases and unstable hemodynamics were excluded. Simultaneous measurements of hemodynamic parameters were conducted using USCOM, EV, and TTE. Inter-rater reliability was determined. Bland-Altman plots were used to analyse agreement of assessed parameters. Results Analysis was performed in 121 patients with mean age of 4.9 years old and 56.2% of male population. Interrater reliability showed acceptable agreement in all measured parameters (stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (CO), velocity time integral (VTI), inotropy (INO), flow time corrected (FTC), aortic valve diameter (AV), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), and stroke volume variation (SVV); (Cronbach’s alpha 0.76–0.98). Percentages of error in all parameters were acceptable by Bland-Altman analysis (9.2–28.8%) except SVR (30.8%) and SVV (257.1%). Conclusion Three noninvasive methods might be used interchangeably in pediatric critical care settings with stable hemodynamics. Interpretation of SVV and SVR measurements must be done with prudence.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85048752066&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199203; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29912937; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199203; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199203; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199203
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know