Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Thoracic electrical bioimpedance versus suprasternal Doppler in emergency care|
|Authors:||Elwan, Mohammed H.|
Green, Samira J.
Eltahan, Salah M.
Sims, Mark R.
Coats, Timothy J.
|Citation:||Emergency Medicine Australasia, 2017, 29 (4), pp. 391-393|
|Abstract:||OBJECTIVE: There are a number of cardiac output (CO) monitors that could potentially be used in the ED. Two of the most promising methods, thoracic electrical bioimpedance and suprasternal Doppler, have not been directly compared. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of CO monitoring using suprasternal Doppler and bioimpedance in emergency care and compare haemodynamic data obtained from both monitors. METHODS: Haemodynamic measurements were made on the same group of patients using bioimpedance (Niccomo, Medis, Germany) and suprasternal Doppler (USCOM, Sydney, Australia). RESULTS: Usable CO data were obtained in 97% of patients by suprasternal Doppler and 87% by bioimpedance. The median CO obtained by Doppler was 3.4 L/min lower than bioimpedance. The stroke volume median was lower by 51 mL in Doppler. CONCLUSIONS: These two methods of non-invasive cardiac monitoring are not interchangeable. The results suggest that the choice of non-invasive cardiac monitor is important, but the grounds on which to make this choice are not currently clear.|
|Rights:||Copyright © 2017, Wiley. Deposited with reference to the publisher’s open access archiving policy.|
|Description:||The file associated with this record is under embargo until 12 months after publication, in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. The full text may be available through the publisher links provided above.|
|Appears in Collections:||Published Articles, Dept. of Cardiovascular Sciences|
Files in This Item:
|Manuscript v2.pdf||Post-review (final submitted author manuscript)||78.2 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.