Can we obtain a noninvasive and continuous estimation of cardiac output? Comparison between three noninvasive methods

Int Heart J. 2013;54(6):395-400. doi: 10.1536/ihj.54.395.


Cardiac output (CO) is often desirable for assessing the hemodynamic condition of a patient, especially in critically ill cardiac patients. Various noninvasive methods are available for this purpose. Inert gas rebreathing (IGR) and 2D-Doppler echocardiography methods have been validated. Based on the relationship between pulse wave transit time and stroke volume, the VISMO® provides an estimated continuous cardiac output (esCCO) measurement using only an electrocardiogram, pulse oximeter wave, and cuff arterial blood pressure. Doppler echocardiography is being currently used in every day practice in this setting and IGR is a validated method, thus we wanted to assess the agreement between these 3 methods for noninvasive CO calculation and reproducibility of esCCO. Patients followed in our cardiology department received on the same day a CO analysis by esCCO, Doppler echocardiography and IGR. Thirty-four patients were included (16 women, mean age 65 ± 15 years). Bland and Altman plots showed a good agreement between IGR and 2D-Doppler echocardiography (bias = 0.31 L/minute). Though there was also an agreement between esCCO and the other 2, the bias was rather large: 1.18 L/minute with IGR and 1.51 L/min with 2D-Doppler echo. The intraclass correlation coefficient was poor whatever the methods. However, esCCO had a satisfactory reproducibility and accuracy compared rather well with the other 2. This method could be suitable for patient screening and monitoring.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Breath Tests
  • Cardiac Output*
  • Echocardiography, Doppler
  • Female
  • Heart Failure / diagnosis*
  • Heart Failure / physiopathology
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Monitoring, Physiologic / methods*
  • Pulse Wave Analysis
  • Reproducibility of Results