We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Haemodynamic instability is common after surgical repair of CHDs in infants and children. Monitoring cardiac output in addition to traditional circulation parameters could improve the postoperative care of these patients. Echocardiography and transpulmonary thermodilution are the two most common methods for measuring cardiac output in infants.
Objectives:
To compare the results of cardiac output measurements using echocardiography and a transpulmonary thermodilution setup after paediatric cardiac surgery.
Methods:
Forty children, scheduled for elective repair of a ventricular septal defect or of an atrio-ventricular septal defect using cardiopulmonary bypass, were enrolled in this prospective, observational study. Cardiac output was simultaneously measured using echocardiography and a commercially available transpulmonary thermodilution method (PiCCO™) at 18 h after the end of surgery.
Results:
At 18 h after surgery, PiCCO™ gave a mean of 3.0% higher cardiac output than echocardiography. This difference was not statistically significant. 95% of the observations fell within –50.0 to 82.6%.
Conclusion:
The methods were found to have a good agreement on average, with no statistically significant difference between them. However, the spread of the results was large. It is questionable whether the methods can be used interchangeably in clinical practice.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.