Top

Current Anesthesiology Reports

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Advances in Monitoring for Anesthesia (LAH Critchley, Section Editor)

Stroke Volume Monitoring: Novel Continuous Wave Doppler Parameters, Algorithms and Advanced Noninvasive Haemodynamic Concepts

Authors: R. A. Phillips, B. E. Smith, V. M. Madigan

Published in: Current Anesthesiology Reports | Issue 4/2017

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Adequate oxygen delivery is essential for life, with hypoxia resulting in dysfunction, and ultimately death, of the cells, organs and organism. Blood flow delivers the oxygen bound in the blood, while haemodynamics is the science of blood flow. Stroke volume (SV) is the fundamental unit of blood flow, and reflects the interdependent performance of the heart, the vessels and the autonomic nervous system. However, haemodynamic management remains generally poor and predominantly guided by simple blood pressure observations alone.

Recent Findings

Doppler ultrasound measures SV with unequalled clinical precision when operated by trained personnel. Combining SV with BP measurements allows calculation of flow-pressure based measures which better reflect cardiovascular performance and allows personalised physiologic and pathophysiologic modelling consistent with Frank’s and Starling’s observations.

Summary

Doppler SV monitoring and novel flow-pressure parameters may improve our understanding of the cardiovascular system and lead to improved diagnosis and therapy. This review examines the physics and practice of Doppler SV monitoring and its application in advanced haemodynamics.

Guyton AC, Lindsey AW, Kaufmann BN. Effect of mean circulatory filling pressure and other peripheral circulatory factors on cardiac output. Am J Phys. 1955;180(3):463–8.

Thiel SW, Kollef MH, Isakow W. Non-invasive stroke volume measurement and passive leg raising predict volume responsiveness in medical ICU patients: an observational cohort study. Crit Care. 2009;13(4):R111. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc7955.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

• Meng L, Heerdt PM. Peri-operative goal-directed haemodynamic therapy based on flow parameters: a concept in evolution. Brit J Anesth. 2016;117(S3):iii3–iii17. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew363. Although this extensive review has omitted several haemodynamic methods, there is still a wealth of knowledge to provide a good overview of the recent changes in haemodynamic monitoring used clinically. The authors also give good insights into why haemodynamic monitoring is required as well as the problems of determining what could and should be used. Unfortunately, there is little emphasis on oxygen delivery indices and rather more on resuscitation and short-term volume-augmented perfusion. CrossRef

Asfar P, Meziani F, Hamel JF, Grelon F, Megarbane B, Anguel N, et al. SEPSISPAM investigators. High versus low blood-pressure target in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(17):1583–93. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1312173.CrossRefPubMed

Thacker JKM, Mountford WK, Ernst FR, Krukas MR, Mythen MG. Perioperative fluid utilization variability and association with outcomes: considerations for enhanced recovery efforts in sample US surgical populations. Ann Surg. 2016;263(3):502–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001402.CrossRefPubMed

Arikan AA, Zappitelli M, Goldstein SL, Naipaul A, Jefferson LS, Loftus LL. Fluid overload is associated with impaired oxygenation and morbidity in critically ill children. Pediatr Care Med. 2012;13(3):253–8.CrossRef

Doherty M, Buggy DJ. Intraoperative fluids: how much is too much? Brit J Anaesth. 2012;109(1):69–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aes171.CrossRefPubMed

• Le Manach Y, Hofer CK, Lehot JJ, Vallet B, Goarin JP, Tavernier B, et al. Can changes in arterial pressure be used to detect changes in cardiac output during volume expansion in the perioperative period? Anesthesiology. 2012;117(6):1165–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e318275561d. In short, the answer to the question the authors ask is no, yet only around one third of anesthesiologists do anything to improve on the answer by way of measuring anything but basic haemodynamic parameters. Using a grey zone approach, the authors show that arterial pressure cannot be used as an index of cardiac output or to guide volume expansion and fluid therapy. Very few patients fulfilled the required criteria for use of PPV as an indicator of fluid status while cardiac arrythmia was a further major confounder. CrossRefPubMed

Rowell LB. Human Cardiovascular Control. Oxford University Press, 1993, p206.

10.

Wade OL, Bishop JM. Cardiac output and regional blood flow. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific; 1962. p. p187.

11.

Frank O. Die Grundform des Arteriellen Pulses. Z Biol. 1899;37:483–526. (also - Sagawa K, Lie RK, Schaefer J. Translation of Otto Frank’s paper “Die Grundform des Arteriellen Pulses” Zeitschrift für Biologie 37: 483-526 1899). J Mol Cell Cardiol. 1990 22(3):253–4.

12.

Starling EH, Visscher MB. The regulation of the energy output of the heart. J Physiol. 1927;62(3):243–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Laketta EG. Starling’s law of the heart is explained by an intimate interaction of muscle length and myofilament calcium activation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;10(5):1157–64.CrossRef

14.

Riva-Rocci S, Zanchetti A, Mancia G. A new sphygmomanometer. Sphygmomanometric technique. J Hypertens. 1996;14(1):1–12.PubMed

15.

Van Montfrans GA. Oscillometric blood pressure measurement: progress and problems. Blood Press Monit. 2001;6(6):287–90.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Cnossem JS, Vollebregt KC, de Vrieze N, ter Riet G, Mol BWJ, Franx A, et al. Accuracy of mean arterial pressure and blood pressure measurements in predicting pre-eclampsia: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1117–20. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39540.522049.BE.CrossRef

17.

Stergiou GS, Kollias A, Destounis A, Tzamouranis D. Automated blood pressure measurement in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2012;30(11):2074–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0b013e32835850d7.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Hansen TW, Kikuya M, Thijs L, Björklund-Bodegård K, Kuznetsova T, Ohkubo T, et al. On behalf of the IDACO investigators. Prognostic superiority of daytime ambulatory over conventional blood pressure in four populations: a meta-analysis of 7030 individuals. J Hypertens. 2007;25(8):1554–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0b013e3281c49da5.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Pickering TG, Hall JE, Appel LJ, Falkner BE, Graves J, Hill MN, et al. Recommendations for blood pressure measurement in humans and experimental animals: part 1: blood pressure measurement in humans: a statement for professionals from the Subcommittee of Professional and Public Education of the American Heart Association Council on high blood pressure research. Circ. 2005;111(5):697–716. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000154900.76284.F6.CrossRef

20.

Picone DS, Schultz MG, Otahal P, Aakhus S, Al-Jumaily AM, Black JA, et al. Accuracy of cuff-measured pressure systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(5):572–86.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Wo CC, Shoemaker WC, Appel PL, Bishop MH, Kram HB, Hardin E. Unreliability of blood pressure and heart rate to evaluate cardiac output in emergency resuscitation and critical illness. Crit Care Med. 1993 Feb;21(2):218–23.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Tomlin PJ, Duck F, McNulty M, Green CD. A comparison of methods of evaluating myocardial contractility. Can Anaesth Soc J. 1975;22:436–8.CrossRefPubMed

23.

• Hall JB. Searching for evidence to support pulmonary artery catheter use in critically ill patients. JAMA. 2005;294(13):1693–4. Although a little dated, this editorial from 2005, some 35 years after the introduction of the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC), discusses the evidence in terms of patient outcomes and the impact, or more accurately, lack of impact, of the PAC. Although often considered or referred to as the ‘gold standard’ of haemodynamic monitoring and cardiac output measurement, in fact there is little evidence to support this view. The ESCAPE trial which was terminated early due to excessive adverse effects in the PAC group is also discussed as is the case for using non-PAC methods of evaluating haemodynamics. The final admonishment of ‘Don’t just do something, stand there! And then think about it…’ is as true today as 12 years ago. CrossRefPubMed

24.

Connors AF, McCaffree DR, Gray BA. Evaluation of right heart catheterization in the critically ill patient without acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1983;308:263–7.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Robin ED. The cult of the Swan-Ganz catheter: overuse and abuse of pulmonary flow catheters. Ann Intern Med. 1985;103(3):445–9. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-103-3-445.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Phillips RA, Hood SG, Jacobson BM, West MJ, Wan L, May CN. Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) accuracy and efficacy compared with flow probe and transcutaneous Doppler (USCOM): an ovine validation. Crit Care Res Prac. 2012; https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/621496.

27.

Schwann NM, Hillel Z, Hoeft A, Barash P, Möhnle P, Miao Y, et al. Lack of effectiveness of the pulmonary artery catheter in cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2011;113(5):994–1002. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e31822c94a8.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Marik P. Obituary: pulmonary artery catheter 1970 to 2013. Ann Intensive Care. 2013;3(1):38. https://doi.org/10.1186/2110-5820-3-38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Fick A. Ueber Diffusion. Annalen der Physik und Chemie von J C Pogendorff. 1855;94:59–86.CrossRef

30.

Mahjoub Y, Lejeune V, Muller L, Perbet S, Zieleskiewicz L, Bart F, et al. Evaluation of pulse pressure variation validity criteria in critically ill patients; a prospective observational multicentre point-prevalence study. Brit J Anaesth. 2014;112(4):681–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aet442.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Takala J, Ruokonen E, Tenhunen JJ, Parviainen I, Jakob SM. Early non-invasive cardiac output monitoring in hemodynamically unstable intensive care patients: a multi-center randomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2011;15(3):R148. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc10273.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Hadian M, Kim HK, Severyn DA, Pinsky MR. Cross-comparison of cardiac output trending accuracy of LiDCO, PiCCO, FloTrac and pulmonary artery catheters. Crit Care. 2010;14(6):R212. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc9335.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Wilde D, de Wilde RBP, Schreuder JJ, van den Berg PCM, Jansen JRC. An evaluation of five pulse arterial contour techniques during cardiac surgery. Anesthesia. 2007;62:760–8.CrossRef

34.

Slagt C, Malagon I, Groeneveld ABJ. Systematic review of uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to determine cardiac output and stroke volume variation. Brit J Anaesth. 2014;112(4):626–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aet429.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Reisner A. Academic assessment of arterial pulse contour analysis: missing the forest for the trees? Brit J Anaesth. 2016;116(6):733–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew110.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Zhang J, Critchley LAH, Huang L. Five algorithms that calculate cardiac output from arterial waveform: a comparison with Doppler ultrasound. Brit J Anaesth. 2015;115(3):392–402. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev254.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Lamia B, Kook KH, Severyn DA, Pinsky MR. Cross-comparisons of trending accuracies of continuous cardiac-output measurements: pulse contour analysis, bioreactance, and pulmonary artery catheter. J Clin Monitor Comput. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-017-9983-4.

38.

Kupersztych-Hagege E, Teboul JL, Artigas A, Talbot A, Sabatier C, Richard C, et al. Bioreactance is not reliable for estimating cardiac output and the effects of passive leg raising in critically ill patients. Brit J Anaesth. 2013;111(6):961–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aet282.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Magliocca A, Rezoagli E, Anderson TA, Burns SM, Ichinose F, Chitilian HV. Cardiac output measurements based on the pulse wave transit time and thoracic impedance exhibit limited agreement with Thermodilution method during orthotopic liver transplantation. Anesth Analg. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002171

40.

Elwan MH, Hue J, Green SJ, Eltahan SM, Sims MR, Coats TJ. Thoracic electrical bioimpedance versus suprasternal Doppler in emergency care. Emerg Med Australas. 2017;29(4):391–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.12765.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Maass SW, Roekaerts PM, Lancé MD. Cardiac output measurement by bioempedance and noninvasive pulse contour analysis compared with the continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution technique. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2014;28(3):534–9. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2014.01.007.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Bogui P, Balayssac-Siransy E, Connes P, Tuo N, Ouattara S, Pichon A, et al. The PhysioFlow thoracic impedance meter is not valid for the measurements of cardiac hemodynamic parameters in chronic anemic patients. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e79086. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079086.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Taylor K, Manlhiot C, McCrindle B, Grosse-Wortmann L, Holtby H. Poor accuracy of noninvasive cardiac output monitoring using bioimpedance cardiography [PhysioFlow(R)] compared to magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients. Anesth Analg. 2012;114(4):771–5. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e318246c32c.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Taylor K, La Rotta G, McCrindle BW, Manlhiot C, Redington A, Holtby H. A comparison of cardiac output by thoracic impedance and direct Fick in children with congenital heart disease undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterization. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2011;25(5):776–9. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2011.05.002.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Sharma V, Singh A, Kansara B, Karlekar A. Comparison of transthoracic electrical bioempedance cardiac output measurement with thermodilution method in post coronary artery bypass graft patients. Ann Card Anaesth. 2011;14(2):104–10. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-9784.81564.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Franklin DL, Schlegel W, Rushmer RF. Blood flow measured by Doppler frequency shift of back scattered ultrasound. Science. 1961;134:564–5.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Huntsman LL, Stewart DK, Barnes SR, Franklin SB, Colocousis JS, Hessel EA. Noninvasive Doppler determination of cardiac output in man. Clinical validation Circulation. 1983;67(3):593–602.CrossRefPubMed

48.

•• Hatle L, Angelsen B. Doppler ultrasound in cardiology. Physical principles and applications. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1982. p. 192. A seminal work that should be compulsory reading for anybody intending to use echocardiography or Doppler techniques to measure volume flows in the heart. The scientific basis of the methods and more importantly, the limitations and pitfalls of the techniques are well explained and are both enlightening and sobering. This should be viewed along with reference 89 for a more complete understanding of the issues involved in using echocardiographic techniques at the point of care.

49.

Haites NE, McLennan FM, Mowat DH, Rawles JM. Assessment of cardiac output by the Doppler ultrasound technique alone. Br Heart J. 1985;53(2):123–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.53.2.123.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Gillam LD, Kritzer GL, Ascah KJ. Which cardiac valve provides the best Doppler estimate of cardiac output in humans. Circulation. 1985;72(Suppl III):99.

51.

McLennan FM, Haites NE, Mackenzie JD, Daniel MK, Rawles JM. Reproducibility of linear cardiac output measurement of Doppler ultrasound alone. Br Heart J. 1986;55:25–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Ihlen H, Endresen K, Myreng Y, Myhre E. Reproducibility of cardiac stroke volume estimated by Doppler echocardiography. Am J Cardiol. 1987;59(9):975–8.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Moulinier L, Venet T, Schiller NB, Kurtz TW, Morris RC, Sebastian A. Measurement of aortic blood flow by Doppler echocardiography: day to day variability in normal subjects and applicability in clinical research. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17:1326–33.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Kusumoto FM, Venet T, Schiller NB, Sebastian A, Foster E. Measurement of aortic blood flow by Doppler echocardiography: temporal, technician and reader variability in normal subjects and the application of generalizability theory in clinical research. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1995;8:647–53.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Phillips RA, Dadd MJ, Gill RW, West MJ, Burstow DJ. Transcutaneous continuous wave Doppler cardiac output monitoring is feasible producing reliable and reproducible signals. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(supplB):283B.

56.

Phillips RA, Paradisis M, Evans NJ, Southwell DL, Burstow DJ, West MJ. Validation of USCOM CO measurements in preterm neonates by comparison with echocardiography. Crit Care. 2006;10(Supl1):144.

57.

Su BC, Yu HP, Yang MW, Lin CC, Kao MC, Chang CH, et al. Reliability of a new ultrasonic cardiac output monitor in recipients of living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2008;14:1029–37.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Smith BE, Phillips RA, Madigan V, West MJ. Decreased mortality, morbidity and emergency transport in septic shock; a new protocol based on advanced noninvasive haemodynamics (USCOM) and early antibiotics. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(12):1023. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000424114.76434.7a.

59.

Deep A, Goonasekera CDA, Wang Y, Brierley J. Evolution of haemodynamics and outcome of fluid refractory septic shock in children. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(9):1602–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-3003-z.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Walker A, Olsson E, Wranne B, Ringqvist I, Ask P. Accuracy of spectral Doppler flow and tissue velocity measurements in ultrasound systems. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2004;30(1):127–32.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Gent R. Applied Physics and Technology of Diagnostic Ultrasound. Milner Publishing 1997.

62.

Quinones MA, et al. Recommendations for quantification of Doppler echocardiography: a report from the Doppler Quantification Task Force of the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2002;15(2):167–84.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Mark JB, Steinbrook RA, Gugino LD, Maddi R, Hartwell B, Shemin R, et al. Continuous noninvasive monitoring of cardiac output with esophageal Doppler ultrasound during cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 1986;65(10):1013–20.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Boyd E. The growth of the surface area of the human body. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1935.

65.

Tanner JM. Fallacy of per weight and per surface area standards and their relation to spurious correlation. J Apllied Physiol. 1949;2(1):1–15.

66.

Gutgesell HP, Rembold CM. Growth of the human heart relative to body surface area. Am J Cardiol. 1990;65(9):662–8.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Nidorf SM, Picard MH, Triulzi MO, Thomas JD, Newell J, King ME, et al. New perspectives in the assessment of cardiac chamber dimensions during development and adulthood. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19(5):983–8.CrossRefPubMed

68.

Sheil ML, Jenkins O, Sholler GF. Echocardiographic assessment of aortic root dimensions in normal children based on measurement of a new ratio of aortic size independent of growth. Am J Cardiol. 1995;75(10):711–5.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Capps SB, Elkins RC, Fronk DM. Body surface area as a predictor of aortic and pulmonary valve diameter. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119(5):975–82.CrossRefPubMed

70.

Walley KR. Use of central venous oxygen saturation to guide therapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184(5):514–20. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201010-1584CI.CrossRefPubMed

71.

Weber E. Wagner’s Handwörterbuch der Physiologie mit Rücksicht auf physiologische Pathologie. Leipzig Vieweg. 1846;3(pt II):110.

72.

Suga H. Left ventricular time-varying pressure-volume ratio in systole as an index of inotropism. Jpn Heart J. 1971;12(2):153–60.CrossRefPubMed

73.

Suga H, Sagawa K. Instantaneous pressure-volume relationships and their ratio in the excised, supported canine left ventricle. Circ Res. 1974;35(1):117–26.CrossRefPubMed

74.

Sagawa K, Suga H, Shoukas AA, Bakalar KM. End-systolic pressure/volume ratio: a new index of ventricular contractility. Am J Cardiol. 1977;40(5):748–53.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Sagawa K, Maughan L, Suga H, Sunagawa K. Cardiac contraction and the pressure-volume relationship. New-York: Oxford University Press; 1988. p. 42–106.

76.

Williams SG, Cooke GA, Wright DJ, Parsons WJ, Riley RL, Marshall P, et al. Peak exercise cardiac output power; a direct indicator of cardiac function strongly predictive of prognosis in chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2001;22(16):1496–503.CrossRefPubMed

77.

Tan LB, Littler WA. Measurement of cardiac reserve in cardiogenic shock: implications for prognosis and management. Br Heart J. 1990;64(2):121–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

78.

Fincke R, Hochman JS, Lowe AM, Menon V, Slater JN, Webb JG, et al. Cardiac power is the strongest hemodynamic correlate of mortality in cardiogenic shock: a report from the SCOTT trial register. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(2):340–8.CrossRefPubMed

79.

Glower DD, Spratt JA, Snow ND, Kabas JS, Davis JW, Olsen CO, et al. Linearity of the Frank-Starling relationship in the intact heart: the concept of preload recruitable stroke work. Circulation. 1985;71(5):994–1009.CrossRefPubMed

80.

Lang CC, Karlin P, Haythe J, Lim TK, Mancini DM. Peak cardiac power output, measured noninvasively, is a powerful predictor of outcome in chronic heart failure. Circ Heart Fail. 2009;2(1):33–8. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.108.798611.CrossRefPubMed

81.

Kelly RP, Ting CT, Yang TM, Liu CP, Muaghan WL, Chang MS, et al. Effective arterial elastance as index of arterial vascular load in humans. Circulation. 1992;86(2):513–21. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.86.2.513.CrossRefPubMed

82.

Chemla D, Antony I, LeCarpentier Y, Nitenberg A. Contribution of systemic vascular resistance and total arterial compliance to effective arterial elastance in humans. Am J Phys. 2003;285(2):H614–20. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00823.2002.

83.

Oommen B, Karamanoglu M, Kovács SJ. Modeling time varying elastance: the meaning of “load-independence”. Cardiovasc Eng. 2003;3(4):123–30.CrossRef

84.

Monge García MI, Cano AG, Romero MG. Dynamic arterial elastance to predict arterial pressure response to volume loading in preload-dependent patients. Crit Care. 2011;15:R15. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc9420.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

85.

Lin ACW, Lowe A, Sidhu K, Harrison W, Ruygrok P, Stewart R. Evaluation of a novel sphygmomanometer, which estimates central aortic blood pressure from analysis of brachial artery suprasystolic pressure waves. J Hypertens. 2012;30(9):1743–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0b013e3283567b94.CrossRefPubMed

86.

Saikia B, Derrick G, Fordham T, Brierley J. Validation of USCOM BP+ in children and adolescents: a preliminary report. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(12):30–1. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000473945.15805.ee.CrossRef

87.

Stoner L, Lambrick DM, Westrupp N, Young J, Faulkner J. Validation of oscillometric pulse wave analysis measurements in children. Am J Hypertens. 2014;27(6):865–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpt243.CrossRefPubMed

88.

Avolio A. Central aortic blood pressure and management of hypertension: confirmation of a paradigm shift? Hypertension. 2013;62(6):1005–7. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA. 113.02125.CrossRefPubMed

89.

McEniery CM, Cockcroft JR, Roman MJ, Franklin SS, Wilkinson AB. Central blood pressure: current evidence and clinical importance. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(26):1719–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht565.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

90.

Smith BE, Madigan V. Non-invasive method for rapid bedside estimation of inotropy: theory and preliminary clinical validation. Brit J Anaesth. 2013;111(4):580–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aet118.CrossRefPubMed

91.

• Porter TR, Shillcutt SK, Adams MS, et al. Guidelines for the use of echocardiography as a monitor for therapeutic intervention in adults: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28(1):40–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2014.09.009. With the huge growth in the use of bedside echocardiography in critical care, it is salutary to understand just what echocardiography can do, and more importantly, what it cannot do reliably or easily. The strict techniques and considerable technical challenges that must be overcome for the accurate measurement of volume flows are daunting for the non-expert echocardiographer. Although a fairly technical document, understanding of the limitations of bedside echocardiography is essential for any practitioner intending to use such data in the therapeutic situation. CrossRefPubMed

92.

Singer M, Clarke J, Bennett ED. Continuous hemodynamic monitoring by esophageal Doppler. Crit Care Med. 1989;17(5):447–52.CrossRefPubMed

93.

Critchley LA, Peng ZY, Fok BS, Flach J, Wong SC, Lee A, et al. Testing the reliability of a new ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, the USCOM, using aortic flow probes in anaesthetized dogs. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:748–53.CrossRefPubMed

94.

Critchley LA. Differences between Cardio-Q and USCOM Doppler cardiac output readings in high risk surgical patients. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108(S2):ii113.

Title: Stroke Volume Monitoring: Novel Continuous Wave Doppler Parameters, Algorithms and Advanced Noninvasive Haemodynamic Concepts
Authors: R. A. Phillips
B. E. Smith
V. M. Madigan
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Current Anesthesiology Reports / Issue 4/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2167-6275
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40140-017-0235-4

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Stroke Volume Monitoring: Novel Continuous Wave Doppler Parameters, Algorithms and Advanced Noninvasive Haemodynamic Concepts

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Transitions of Care in the Perioperative Period

Teamwork, Safety, and Non-Technical Skills

Regional Versus General Anesthesia in the Elderly: New Insights

Improvement Science in Anaesthesia

Prehabilitation and Nutritional Support to Improve Perioperative Outcomes

Cardiac Output Monitoring: Validation Studies–how Results Should be Presented