Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Linton, N. W. F.
Right arrow Articles by Costa, M. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Linton, N. W. F.
Right arrow Articles by Costa, M. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2002, Vol. 89, No. 2 336-339
© 2002 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Correspondence

Is comparison of changes in cardiac output, assessed by different methods, better than only comparing cardiac output to the reference method?

N. W. F. Linton1, R. A. F. Linton1, G. Della Rocca2 and M. G. Costa2

1 London, UK 2 Rome, Italy

{dagger}Declaration of interest. The authors have previously worked for LiDCO Ltd (manufacturer of monitoring equipment), and RL has an equity interest in this company.

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Editor—In the last few years, there have been several papers describing continuous cardiac output (CO) estimation by analysis of the arterial pressure waveform. These pulse contour cardiac output (PCO) methods require calibration for each patient using a method such as indicator dilution.

After calibration, the purpose of PCO methods is to track ensuing changes in CO. As part of a recent report in this journal,1 a PCO method was calibrated with transpulmonary thermodilution. Changes in CO were analysed but there was no corresponding graph and no discussion of these results. Unfortunately, many reports evaluating PCO do not provide any statistical comparison of changes in CO, assessed by the different methods. Instead they provide a ‘Bland–Altman analysis’ comparing calibrated PCO with the reference method: this can be . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
H. M. C. Kemps, E. J. M. Thijssen, G. Schep, B. T. H. M. Sleutjes, W. R. De Vries, A. R. Hoogeveen, P. F. F. Wijn, and P. A. F. M. Doevendans
Evaluation of two methods for continuous cardiac output assessment during exercise in chronic heart failure patients
J Appl Physiol, December 1, 2008; 105(6): 1822 - 1829.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
B. Bein, J. Renner, P. Meybohm, J. Scholz, J. C. Kubitz, and D. A. Reuter
Validation of pulse contour derived stroke volume variation
Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2007; 99(5): 745 - 746.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
I. G. Tzenkov, J. P. Pena, G. D. Rocca, and M. G. Costa
Continuous and intermittent cardiac output measurement: pulmonary artery catheter versus aortic transpulmonary technique
Br. J. Anaesth., February 1, 2003; 90(2): 254 - 257.
[Full Text] [PDF]