Agreement of cardiac index measurements between ultrasonic cardiac output monitor and transthoracic echocardiography in neonates.

Q3 Medicine Tunisie Medicale Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.62438/tunismed.v102i9.5095
Khaled Menif, Ahmed Ayari, Assaad Louati, Shatila Ibn Haj Hassine, Asma Bouziri, Aida Borgi
{"title":"Agreement of cardiac index measurements between ultrasonic cardiac output monitor and transthoracic echocardiography in neonates.","authors":"Khaled Menif, Ahmed Ayari, Assaad Louati, Shatila Ibn Haj Hassine, Asma Bouziri, Aida Borgi","doi":"10.62438/tunismed.v102i9.5095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the agreement of cardiac index (CI) calculated by Ultrasonic sonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) and transthoracic thoracic echocardiography (TTE) in order to know if we can recommend USCOM in our pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective observational evaluative study carried out over a period of 3 months Setting: PICU at children's hospital in Tunis Participants: All newborns without tracheostomy or a known congenital heart disease, admitted to the PICU during the study period were enrolled.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Paired and consecutive measurements of CI were obtained in all patients with both technologies. All measurements by TTE and USCOM were performed by two distinct operators. It is the average of three successive measures of the CI, in the same patient, with each technology, which was considered. Agreement of CI between the 2 techniques was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis and percentage error.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Forty-two infants were analyzed with the mean (standard deviation) gestation 36 weeks ( 5 days), age 1 days (1.09) , and weight 2.9 kg (0.87). Respiratory failure was the main cause of admission 75%. At the time of the study, 33 (75.%) patients were ventilated artificially. Bias (mean difference) of the CI between the two methods was 1.2 l/min/m2 and precision (± 2 SD of differences) was 1.08 l/min/m2. The MPE of CI measurement for USCOM vs TTE was 54.9%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The USCOM showed a poor agreement to TTE measures of CI. The two methods cannot be considered interchangeable.</p>","PeriodicalId":38818,"journal":{"name":"Tunisie Medicale","volume":"102 9","pages":"565-570"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11459236/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tunisie Medicale","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v102i9.5095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the agreement of cardiac index (CI) calculated by Ultrasonic sonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) and transthoracic thoracic echocardiography (TTE) in order to know if we can recommend USCOM in our pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

Design: Prospective observational evaluative study carried out over a period of 3 months Setting: PICU at children's hospital in Tunis Participants: All newborns without tracheostomy or a known congenital heart disease, admitted to the PICU during the study period were enrolled.

Interventions: Paired and consecutive measurements of CI were obtained in all patients with both technologies. All measurements by TTE and USCOM were performed by two distinct operators. It is the average of three successive measures of the CI, in the same patient, with each technology, which was considered. Agreement of CI between the 2 techniques was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis and percentage error.

Measurements and main results: Forty-two infants were analyzed with the mean (standard deviation) gestation 36 weeks ( 5 days), age 1 days (1.09) , and weight 2.9 kg (0.87). Respiratory failure was the main cause of admission 75%. At the time of the study, 33 (75.%) patients were ventilated artificially. Bias (mean difference) of the CI between the two methods was 1.2 l/min/m2 and precision (± 2 SD of differences) was 1.08 l/min/m2. The MPE of CI measurement for USCOM vs TTE was 54.9%.

Conclusions: The USCOM showed a poor agreement to TTE measures of CI. The two methods cannot be considered interchangeable.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新生儿超声心输出量监测仪和经胸超声心动图测量心脏指数的一致性。
目的评估超声心输出量监测仪(USCOM)和经胸超声心动图(TTE)计算的心脏指数(CI)的一致性,以了解我们是否可以在儿科重症监护病房(PICU)推荐使用超声心输出量监测仪:设计:为期 3 个月的前瞻性观察评估研究:突尼斯儿童医院儿科重症监护室 参与者:所有在研究期间入住 PICU 的无气管切开术或已知先天性心脏病的新生儿:采用两种技术对所有患者的 CI 进行配对和连续测量。所有 TTE 和 USCOM 测量均由两名不同的操作员完成。对同一患者使用每种技术连续测量三次 CI,取其平均值。通过布兰-阿尔特曼(Bland-Altman)分析和百分比误差评估两种技术的 CI 一致性:分析了 42 名婴儿,平均(标准差)孕期 36 周(5 天),年龄 1 天(1.09),体重 2.9 千克(0.87)。入院的主要原因是呼吸衰竭,占 75%。研究期间,33 名(75.%)患者接受了人工呼吸。两种方法的 CI 偏差(平均差异)为 1.2 升/分钟/平方米,精度(差异的 ± 2 SD)为 1.08 升/分钟/平方米。USCOM 与 TTE 的 CI 测量 MPE 为 54.9%:结论:USCOM 与 TTE 测量 CI 的一致性较差。结论:USCOM 与 TTE 测量 CI 的一致性较差,不能认为这两种方法可以互换。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Tunisie Medicale
Tunisie Medicale Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
期刊最新文献
Ethics and Practices of the Pharmacist. Evaluation of learning abilities after role-playing method: Comparing outcomes of Active and Observer. From Thesis to Publication: Unveiling the Predictive Factors for Cardiology Research at a North African Faculty of Medicine (Tunisia). Impact of therapeutic education on quality of life in coronary patients: Interventional study. Impacts of zinc enriched spirulina as an adjunct to conventional treatment of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Study protocol for a North African randomized controlled trial (SPIRICOPD).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1