Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
 

Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »

Stanford Health Care

Cardiac output assessment methods in left ventricular assist device patients: A problem of heteroscedasticity. The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation Azih, N. I., Read, J. M., Jackson, G. R., Inampudi, C., Witer, L., Kilic, A., Pope, N. H., Hajj, J., Haddad, F., Tedford, R. J., Houston, B. A. 2022

Abstract

Equipoise remains about how best to measure cardiac output (CO) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). In this study, direct Fick CO was compared with thermodilution (TD) and indirect Fick (iFick) CO in 61 LVAD patients. TD and LaFarge iFick showed moderate correlation with direct Fick (R2 = 0.49 and R2 = 0.38, p < 0.001 for both), while Dehmer and Bergstra iFick showed poor correlation with direct Fick (R2 = 0.29 and R2 = 0.31, p < 0.001 for both). Absolute bias between all CO estimation techniques and direct Fick CO was lowest for TD compared to iFick methods but significant for all methods. All methods tended to overestimate CO compared to direct Fick, with greatest overestimation present in those with the lowest measured direct Fick CO. Bias and frequency of significant discrepancy were least using TD and Lafarge iFick CO estimation methods in this study, with TD CO demonstrating modestly better correlation and less heteroscedasticity compared to Lafarge.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.healun.2022.10.021

View details for PubMedID 36481112