Skip to content


  • Review
  • Open Access

Applications of minimally invasive cardiac output monitors

  • Jahan Porhomayon1, 3Email author,
  • Gino Zadeii2,
  • Samuel Congello2 and
  • Nader D Nader1
International Journal of Emergency Medicine20125:18

Received: 27 September 2010

Accepted: 24 April 2012

Published: 24 April 2012


Because of the increasing age of the population, critical care and emergency medicine physicians have seen an increased number of critically ill patients over the last decade. Moreover, the trend of hospital closures in the United States t imposes a burden of increased efficiency. Hence, the identification of devices that facilitate accurate but rapid assessments of hemodynamic parameters without the added burden of invasiveness becomes tantamount. The purpose of this review is to understand the applications and limitations of these new technologies.


Pulmonary Artery CatheterPulse Pressure VariationStroke Volume VariationPulse ContourPulse Contour Analysis


The ultimate goal of any hemodynamic monitoring system is to provide the clinicians with additional information on the underlying pathological condition and to guide fluid or vasopressor therapy. Cardiac output measurement and its response to therapeutic interventions are frequently used in critically ill patients. As the use of CO monitoring devices increases today, it is necessary to understand the application of such devices in different clinical settings. For many years pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) thermodilution cardiac output assessment was the monitor of choice for the management of critically ill patients. Thermodilution is a modification of the original indicator dilution techniques in which the injectate has a defined volume and temperature from which the thermodilution curve is generated [1]. As with the other indicator dilution techniques, CO is calculated from the area under the indicator thermodilution curve using the modified Stewart-Hamilton equation [2]. PAC was first used in dogs, and subsequently in humans 50 years later [2]. PAC provides valuable measurements, including right atrial pressure, right ventricular pressures, pulmonary artery pressures, pulmonary artery occlusive pressure, mixed venous saturation (SvO2), and CO. The derived hemodynamic variables are systemic and pulmonary vascular resistances. The major obstacle for the use of PAC has been the lack of demonstrating patient benefit and its level of invasiveness. Several prospective trials have demonstrated the lack of benefit from PACs. The PAC-man trial indicated that the routine placement of PACs had no effect on morbidity or mortality, and the ESCAPE trial found no difference in mortality or length of hospital stay when PAC parameters were compared with clinical assessment in the management of severe congestive heart failure patients [36]. Furthermore, for using PAC now, many physicians have lost the training, confidence, and familiarity with its use. PAC should probably be used only in selected patients by experienced practitioners. Contraindications to the insertion of PAC include tricuspid or pulmonary valve endocarditis/mechanical valve and right heart mass or thrombus. Like the PAC, each of these newer monitoring modalities requires education and training for effective use. For emergency room physicians, each technology provides a set of advantages and limitations. Minimally invasive cardiac output monitors allow for time efficiency in the emergency department setting and provide valuable information regarding the overall cardiovascular status of the patient. Declining cardiac index in trauma patients may indicate the need for revaluation of the patient. In general, early goal-directed therapy is usually better in the early phase of critical illness in contrast to late stages for sick patients. Minimally invasive monitoring devices for optimal CO and global oxygen balance may be of particular interest for emergency medicine physicians in the perioperative setting, acute lung injury, hypothermia induction, or preload and fluid responsiveness assessment in the management of septic shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Currently the evidence and literature have not necessarily caught up with the trends in the US and Europe with these devices, and partts of the article represent the authors' experience.

Minimally invasive CO monitors

CO monitors use different principles for measuring CO. They include Doppler technology, echocardiography, pulse contour analysis, transpulmonary thermodilution, bioimpedance, bioreactance and Fick's principle.

Esophageal Doppler

Esophageal Doppler (ED) measuring aortic blood flow velocity was first introduced in 1971 [7]. The ED monitor measures the velocity of blood flow in the descending thoracic aorta using a flexible ultrasound probe. When combined with the aortic cross-sectional area it allows measurement of stroke volume and CO. The aortic diameter is obtained from a built-in nomogram or by direct measurement using M-mode echocardiography. A meta-analysis of several trials in critically ill patients showed high validity, but they were all performed in stable hemodynamic patients [8]. This meta-analysis suggested that ED was good at determining trends in CO but less effective in measuring absolute CO. The main application of this device has been for preload optimization, myocardial contractibility and goal-directed fluid therapy for surgical patients (Figure 1) [911]. ED can be safely utilized in emergency departments. In the study by Rodriguez et al. [12], they demonstrated in a prospective manner that cardiac output evaluation using ED in the emergency room was superior to physician estimation of cardiac output. He concluded that esophageal Doppler measurement of CO/CI appears to be practical from a physician time standpoint. Marquez et al. [13] demonstrated good correlation between ED and the LIDCO devices in cardiac surgery patients. Seoudi et al. prospectively investigated the correlation between PAC and ED in surgical trauma. On the basis of this study, it is reasonable to conclude that the ED is a valuable adjunct technology for CO and preload assessment for patients in the emergency medicine ward on mechanical ventilation, regardless of the level of mechanical ventilatory support [14]. The current literature supports the use of ED for assessment of cardiac output and left ventricular filling pressure [1517]. This device is operator dependent, and placement of the probe in the wrong position can alter the CO reading. Additional limitations include the need for intubation of the trachea, expense, inaccurate CO in patients with aortic regurgitation, and the assumption that the division of the blood flow from the descending aorta is constant with even distribution to the brachiocephahlic and coronary arteries. This assumption is not always true in very ill patients.
Figure 1
Figure 1

Esophageal Doppler has the ability to measure flow time and peak velocity. The flow time is the time from the beginning of aortic pulse waveform upstroke to its return to baseline. A. Peak velocity is a good indicator of myocardial contractibility (normal). B. The left ventricular ejection time (or flow-time) corrected for heart rate provides an index of preload (hypovolemia). C. Left ventricular failure. Note that during hypovolemia and heart failure the stroke distance is decreased.


Echocardiography has been used in the ICU and emergency medicine for many years to diagnose the underlying cause of hemodynamic instability. Like ED, echocardiography uses Doppler technology, but it relies on direct visualization of the cardiac anatomy and flow dynamics. The American College of Emergency Physicians encourages emergency medicine physicians to be able to rapidly diagnose pericardial tamponade and electromechanical dissociation, which represent truly emergent and potentially lethal cardiovascular conditions. A focused point of care exam will enable the emergency medicine physician to quickly assess: hemodynamic states [18] and unexplained hypotension [19], congestive heart failure, pericardial effusion, and pulmonary emboli [20]. In addition, it provides an emergency medicine physician an important tool to assess the efficiency of resuscitation and ultimately improve patient outcome [21]. Moreover, if the causes of circulatory failure are obscure, echocardiography provides the ability to evaluate structural abnormalities such as:
  1. 1.

    Wall motion abnormality for the diagnosis of myocardial injury [22] and evaluation of cardiac preload by estimating inferior vena cava (IVC) collapsibility [23].

  2. 2.

    Ventricular systolic dysfunction [24] and cardiac output (Figure 2).

Figure 2
Figure 2

Blood leaves the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) as a cylinder (aorta shown in red ). The volume of the cylinder is equal to the stroke volume (SV). In order to calculate SV, the echocardiographer must obtain the diameter of the LVOT and velocity time integral (VTI) of the blood measured at the same exact location. Ao = Aorta, LV = left ventricle, RV = right ventricle, LA = left atrium.

One potential disadvantage of this device is the additional training required to make a proper diagnosis. Detailed cardiac echocardiography for diagnosis of complex cardiac diseases requires more advance training. Echocardiography measures CO only in a single point in time and is not suitable for trend analysis.

Pulse contour analysis

Pulse contour analysis of cardiac output is based on the principles that stroke volume can be continuously estimated by analyzing the arterial pressure waveform obtained from an arterial line. The origin of the pulse contour method for estimation of the beat-to-beat stroke volume is based on the Windkessel model described by Otto Frank in 1899. In 1974, Wesseling et al. developed an algorithm that can be used to monitor stroke volume (SV) [25]. CO is calculated from the area under the curve of the systolic portion of the arterial pressure waveform divided by the aortic impedance multiplied by the heart rate. Currently, there are different commercially available devices that measure CO based on the pulse contour analysis method.

The most frequently used ones are the calibrated PiCCO monitor system (PULSION Medical Systems, Munich, Germany), the LiDCO monitoring system (LiDCO Ltd., London, UK), which is available as either a calibrated (LiDCOplus) or uncalibrated device (LiDCOrapid), and the uncalibrated FloTrac/Vigileo device (Edwards Life Sciences, Irvine, CA). The pulse contour devices are utilized with greater frequency in our local practice; hence, they are covered in more detail.

PiCCO system

The PiCCO system uses the pulse contour method based on the Wesseling algorithm for the calculation of CO. The system is periodically calibrated via the thermodilution method to calibrate the pulse pressure algorithm. PiCCO is a cardiac monitor that measures cardiac output and several volumes such as intrathoracic blood volume (ITBV), global end diastolic volume (GEDV), and extra vascular lung water (EVLW) [26]. PiCCO can also provide pulse contour parameters, which consist of continuous CO, systemic vascular resistance (SVR), stroke volume variation (SVV), and pulse pressure variation. The PiCCO system requires a thermistor-tipped central venous catheter and an arterial line usually introduced via the femoral, axillary, or brachial artery. After central venous injection of the cold indicator, the thermistor in the tip of the arterial catheter measures the downstream temperature changes. The CO is then calculated by analysis of the thermodilution curve using a modified Stewart-Hamilton algorithm. Pulse contour analysis continuously measures stroke volume and arterial pressure. CO and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) are calculated (Figure 3). Different studies in a variety of clinical settings have been performed in recent years validating the PiCCO system against intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution (ITD) [27, 28]. Goal-directed therapy with this technology has been reported in patients undergoing CABG surgery [29] and for preload optimization [30, 31]. In the study by Uchino et al., the use of PiCCO was associated with a greater positive fluid balance and fewer ventilator-free days. After correction for confounding factors, the choice of monitoring did not influence major outcomes, whereas a positive fluid balance was a significant independent predictor of outcome [32]. This device has mainly been utilized in critical care setting but
Figure 3
Figure 3

PiCCO system: Stroke volume is the area under systolic portion of arterial pulse waveform (shaded). Stroke volume is calculated = [area under systolic phase (shaded) + aortic compliance] × shape of pressure curve.

PiCCO has the ability to measure (ITBV), (EVLW), and cardiac function index (CFI). These parameters are of interest as they are considered to be the most specific measures of cardiac preload, pulmonary edema, contractility, and a global indicator of cardiac performance. Therefore, PiCCO may give an emergency medicine physician a powerful tool for managing critically ill patients [29].


Flo-Trac is another pulse contour CO monitoring system (Vigileo, Edwards Life Sciences) that was introduced in 2005. A special blood flow sensor, which is connected to an arterial line (radial, brachial, axillary or femoral artery), is needed. No external calibration is necessary [3335]. This device calculates CO on a continuous basis by multiplying the pulse rate by calculated stroke volume. The direct relationship between arterial pulsatility and the stroke volume is used to calculate CO. Based on the model described by Langewouters et al. [36] individual demographics (body surface area, age, gender) are used for estimation of aortic compliance. Vascular compliance and resistance are determined using arterial waveform analysis. Several studies [33, 37, 38] have been performed concerning the accuracy of Vigileo CO monitoring in a variety of patients with different software versions of the device. The Vigileo monitor has been used in emergency medicine setting for resuscitation of burn victims with good result [39]. Stroke volume variation on this monitor can help clinicians to assess fluid responsiveness in the initial phase of septic shock. However, rapid changes in vascular motor tone may lead to impaired accuracy of CO monitoring. Flow-Trac accuracy is worse with arterial wave artifact, compromise of the arterial catheter, aortic regurgitation, intense peripheral vasoconstriction, irregular pulse, and severe cardiac hypo-function. Thus, its reliability is influenced by various conditions, especially in critically ill patients [40].

Lithium dilution CO

The technique of using lithium dilution to measure CO was first described in 1993 by Linton et al. [41]. This technique uses pulse contour analysis for CO measurement and lithium dilution for system calibration. A small dose of lithium is injected into a peripheral vein, and an ion selective electrode is attached to a peripheral arterial line. The area under the curve of a plot of lithium concentration against time allows accurate calculation of the CO. The lithium dilution technique is of sufficient accuracy when there is constant blood flow and uniform mixing of blood. There are advantages and limitations to this technology, discussed in detail by Pearse et al. [42]. Other groups have demonstrated the accuracy of LIDCO [43]. Costa et al. showed good agreement among the LiDCO, PAC, and PICCO systems [44]. The major limitation to this device is the need for repetitive blood draws and, in the presence of neuromuscular blocking drugs, interference with calibration.


The use of the electrical signal across the thorax to measure CO goes back to early 1970 [45]. Bioimpedance technology uses electrical resistance charges across the chest for identification of cyclic changes in blood flow. CO is then continuously estimated by analyzing beat-to-beat signal variation. CO calculation is based on different mathematical models. Early studies demonstrated only a fair correlation between thoracic electrical impedance (TEB) and thermodilution CO [46]. Despite many adjustments of the mathematical algorithms, validation studies continue to show mixed results [47]. In addition, TEB accuracy decreases with excessive lung water and pulmonary edema [48]. In recent years advances in bioimpedence technology have resulted in development of a novel technology placing the electrodes on endotracheal tube cuff (ECOM, CONMED, Utica, NY, USA). The proximity of the ascending aorta and trachea facilitated the design of this device. It can optimize the current delivery and signal recording from changes in the ascending aorta [49]. Because the tracheal mucosa produces mucous and fluid, the endotracheal cardiac output monitor (ECOM) electrodes have been designed to reduce the effects of fluid and mucous buildup. This device appears promising, and preliminary data indicate adequate reliability of this device [4951]. The main disadvantage of ECOM is the need for an endotracheal tube and mechanical ventilation. ECOM can be used in emergency medicine for preload assessment and response to vasopressor therapy.


Bioreactance (NICOM; Cheetah Medical, Vancouver, WA, USA) is a unique technology for assessment of cardiac output [52]. It is similar to bioimpedance in that electrical current is applied to the chest via two leads. The bioreactance technique analyzes the frequency variations of the delivered oscillating current. This will result in a higher signal-to-noise ratio, and thus result in improved performance of the device. There have been several studies comparing the NICOM monitor to other monitors (PiCCO, Flo-Trac, PAC). These studies showed high agreement with the various monitors [5256]. This device has very few known disadvantages and can be used in variety of settings.

Fick's principle

Adolf Fick spent most of his life studying muscle metabolism, but in a brief publication in 1870, he described how mass balance might be used to measure cardiac output [57]. Later Guyton et al quoted the original work and expanded upon it [58]. It is based on the conservation of mass, such that the total uptake or release of a substance by an organ is the product of the blood flow to that organ multiplied by the arteriovenous concentration difference [59]. CO by modified Fick's method measures carbon dioxide (CO2) production and exhaled or end tidal CO2 at baseline and during a brief period of rebreathing. This will allow calculation of pulmonary artery blood flow. A new monitor called the NICO system (Novametrix Medical Systems, Wallingford, CT) uses Fick's equation for CO2 elimination. It is relatively noninvasive. Its principle states that over a fixed period of time the amount of CO2 leaving the lungs in the arterial blood is equal to the amount brought into the lungs in the venous blood minus the amount eliminated through the lungs. With this method, the CO is computed on breath-by-breath measurements of CO2 elimination. CO is proportional to the change in CO2 elimination divided by the change in end tidal CO2 resulting from a brief rebreathing period. Rebreathing measurements are made every 3 min for 35 s. The main drawback to this system is the assumption about the shunt fraction and arterial CO2 being equal to end-tidal CO2. Clinical and experimental data for CO determinations with the NICO monitor [60] give a better approximation of CO in patients who are less critically ill and have normal alveolar gas exchange. Additionally, preload optimization may be difficult using the NICO monitor, and caution should be exercised before using this monitor for fluid administration. Potentially large volumes of fluid may be administered to achieve desired endpoints [61]. Advantages of NICO include the easy setup and providing capillary blood flow and ventilator parameters, such as the ratio of tidal volume to dead space. The NICO monitor assumes that the partial venous CO2 concentration reflects the level of CO2 stored in the body. Therefore, any changes in metabolism or ventilation may alter the reliability of this monitor. Pulmonary shunting and heterogeneous ventilation decrease the precision of this device in acute lung injury since the shunt fraction is estimated from the concentration of the inspired fraction of oxygen and arterial oxygen saturation. Its main area of use has been in stable cardiac patients. This device can be utilized in the busy emergency medicine environment for evaluation of low cardiac output states if a patient is already intubated and on mechanical ventilation.


With an increasing need for utilization of hemodynamic monitoring due to the aging population, increased comorbidities and increasingly complex interventions and monitoring are becoming incorporated into the standard of care, and the need for hemodynamic monitoring is likely to increase. Because of the inherent limitations and complications of PAC in the busy emergency department, physicians are looking for less invasive devices to measure CO. There is no gold standard for the clinical measurement of CO. Therefore, comparison of these new technologies is somewhat challenging (Table 1). The level of invasiveness and complexity may help the clinicians decide where to best use the devices (Figure 4).
Table 1

Cardiac output monitors






Pulmonary infarction


Measure CVP

Rupture of pulmonary artery


Intermittent and continuous



SVR can be obtained

Need right heart catheterization

Pulse wave




Intermittent and continuous

Need a central venous access


Measures GEDV/EVLW


Estimate preload




Intermittent and continuous

Cannot be used if patient on lithium or NDM


SVR can be obtained

Need frequent blood drawing


Does not estimate preload

C. Flo-trac

SVR can be obtained

Not reliable in very high CO state


Measure PPV/SVV

Perform poorly with tachyarrhythmia


Many validation studies

Valvular pathology prevents accurate reading of CO

Esophageal Doppler

Less invasive

Needs intubated patient


Simple to use

Only measure descending aortic flow


Not good in AR


Provides detailed cardiac information

Needs additional training


Estimate preload

Inability to image patient



Numerous mathematical assumptions



Signal stability fails after 24 h


Sensors can be placed anywhere in thorax and back




Numerous mathematical assumptions


Difficult to set up

Signal stability fails after 24 h

Flick's Principle

Easy set up

Not suitable for unstable patient


Provides additional ventilatory parameters

Shunt can affect CO estimation

CVP central venous pressure, BP blood pressure, CO cardiac output, PCA pulse contour analysis, ICU intensive care unit, SVV stroke volume variation, PPV pulse pressure variation, GEDV global end diastolic volume, EVLW extravascular lung water, SVR systemic vascular resistance, CO cardiac output, AR aortic regurgitation, NDM non-depolarizing muscle relaxant, PAC pulmonary artery catheter

Figure 4
Figure 4

Suggested use of cardiac output devices and monitoring system within the hospital system. ER = Emergency room, OR/PACU = operating room/post-anesthesia care unit, SDU = step down unit, ICU = intensive care unit, ECOM = endotracheal cardiac output monitoring.



JP, GZ, SC, and NN contributed towards the article by making substantial contributions to conception, design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data and were involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content. No funding was provided for the manuscript preparation.

Authors’ Affiliations

VA Western New York Healthcare System, Division of Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, State University of New York at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, USA
University of Iowa, Mason City Cardiology, Mason City, USA
VA Medical Center, Buffalo, USA


  1. Fegler G: Measurement of cardiac output in anaesthetized animals by a thermodilution method. Q J Exp Physiol Cogn Med Sci 1954,39(3):153–164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Stewart GN: Researches on the circulation time and on the influences which affect it. J Physiol 1897,22(3):159–183.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Reade MC, Angus DC: PAC-Man: game over for the pulmonary artery catheter? Crit Care 2006,10(1):303. 10.1186/cc3977PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ivanov R, Allen J, Calvin JE: The incidence of major morbidity in critically ill patients managed with pulmonary artery catheters: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2000,28(3):615–619. 10.1097/00003246-200003000-00002PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Kahwash R, Leier CV, Miller L: Role of the pulmonary artery catheter in diagnosis and management of heart failure. Heart Fail Clin 2009,5(2):241–248. 10.1016/j.hfc.2008.12.002PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Shah MR, et al.: Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness (ESCAPE): design and rationale. Am Heart J 2001,141(4):528–535. 10.1067/mhj.2001.113995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Side CD, Gosling RG: Non-surgical assessment of cardiac function. Nature 1971,232(5309):335–336. 10.1038/232335a0PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dark PM, Singer M: The validity of trans-esophageal Doppler ultrasonography as a measure of cardiac output in critically ill adults. Intensive Care Med 2004,30(11):2060–2066. 10.1007/s00134-004-2430-2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Singer M, Bennett ED: Noninvasive optimization of left ventricular filling using esophageal Doppler. Crit Care Med 1991,19(9):1132–1137. 10.1097/00003246-199109000-00007PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Madan AK, et al.: Esophageal Doppler ultrasound monitor versus pulmonary artery catheter in the hemodynamic management of critically ill surgical patients. J Trauma 1999,46(4):607–611. discussion 611–612 10.1097/00005373-199904000-00008PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Isakow W, Schuster DP: Extravascular lung water measurements and hemodynamic monitoring in the critically ill: bedside alternatives to the pulmonary artery catheter. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2006,291(6):L1118-L1131. 10.1152/ajplung.00277.2006PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Rodriguez RM, Berumen KA: Cardiac output measurement with an esophageal doppler in critically ill Emergency Department patients. J Emerg Med 2000,18(2):159–164. 10.1016/S0736-4679(99)00187-0PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Marquez J, et al.: Ability of pulse power, esophageal Doppler, and arterial pulse pressure to estimate rapid changes in stroke volume in humans. Crit Care Med 2008,36(11):3001–3007. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31818b31f0PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Seoudi HM, et al.: The esophageal Doppler monitor in mechanically ventilated surgical patients: does it work? J Trauma 2003,55(4):720–725. discussion 725–726 10.1097/01.TA.0000092593.31283.B4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Atlas GM: Development and application of a logistic-based systolic model for hemodynamic measurements using the esophageal Doppler monitor. Cardiovasc Eng 2008,8(3):159–173. 10.1007/s10558-008-9057-9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Dabrowski GP, et al.: A critical assessment of endpoints of shock resuscitation. Surg Clin North Am 2000,80(3):825–844. 10.1016/S0039-6109(05)70098-0PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Marik PE: Pulmonary artery catheterization and esophageal doppler monitoring in the ICU. Chest 1999,116(4):1085–1091. 10.1378/chest.116.4.1085PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Royse CF: Ultrasound-guided haemodynamic state assessment. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2009,23(3):273–283. 10.1016/j.bpa.2009.02.009PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Price S, Uddin S, Quinn T: Echocardiography in cardiac arrest. Curr Opin Crit Care 2010,16(3):211–215. 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3283399d4cPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Mookadam F, et al.: Critical appraisal on the utility of echocardiography in the management of acute pulmonary embolism. Cardiol Rev 2010,18(1):29–37. 10.1097/CRD.0b013e3181c09443PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Breitkreutz R, Walcher F, Seeger FH: Focused echocardiographic evaluation in resuscitation management: concept of an advanced life support-conformed algorithm. Crit Care Med 2007,35(5 Suppl):S150-S161.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Parato VM, et al.: Resting echocardiography for the early detection of acute coronary syndromes in chest pain unit patients. Echocardiography 2010,27(6):597–602. 10.1111/j.1540-8175.2010.01166.xPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Longjohn M, et al.: Point-of-care echocardiography by pediatric emergency physicians. Pediatr Emerg Care 2011,27(8):693–696. 10.1097/PEC.0b013e318226c7c7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Randazzo MR, et al.: Accuracy of emergency physician assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction and central venous pressure using echocardiography. Acad Emerg Med 2003,10(9):973–977. 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00654.xPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Wesseling KH, et al.: A computer module for the continuous monitoring of cardiac output in the operating theatre and the ICU. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 1976,27(suppl):327–341.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Eisenberg PR, et al.: A prospective study of lung water measurements during patient management in an intensive care unit. Am Rev Respir Dis 1987,136(3):662–668. 10.1164/ajrccm/136.3.662PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Della Rocca G, et al.: Cardiac output monitoring: aortic transpulmonary thermodilution and pulse contour analysis agree with standard thermodilution methods in patients undergoing lung transplantation. Can J Anaesth 2003,50(7):707–711. 10.1007/BF03018714PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Halvorsen PS, et al.: Agreement between PiCCO pulse-contour analysis, pulmonal artery thermodilution and transthoracic thermodilution during off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2006,50(9):1050–1057. 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2006.01118.xPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Cottis R, Magee N, Higgins DJ: Haemodynamic monitoring with pulse-induced contour cardiac output (PiCCO) in critical care. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2003,19(5):301–307. 10.1016/S0964-3397(03)00063-6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hung MH, et al.: Application of Pulse Contour Cardiac Output (PiCCO) system for adequate fluid management in a patient with severe reexpansion pulmonary edema. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan 2008,46(4):187–190. 10.1016/S1875-4597(09)60008-4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Aguilar G, Belda FJ, Perel A: Minimally invasive cardiopulmonary monitoring with the PiCCO Plus system. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2008,55(2):90–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Uchino S, et al.: Pulmonary artery catheter versus pulse contour analysis: a prospective epidemiological study. Crit Care 2006,10(6):R174. 10.1186/cc5126PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Mehta Y, et al.: Cardiac output monitoring: comparison of a new arterial pressure waveform analysis to the bolus thermodilution technique in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2008,22(3):394–399. 10.1053/j.jvca.2008.02.015PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayer J, et al.: Cardiac output derived from arterial pressure waveform analysis in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: validity of a second generation device. Anesth Analg 2008,106(3):867–872. table of contents 10.1213/ane.0b013e318161964dPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Scheeren TW, et al.: Performance of a minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring system (Flotrac/Vigileo). Br J Anaesth 2008,101(2):279–280. 10.1093/bja/aen195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Langewouters GJ, Wesseling KH, Goedhard WJ: The pressure dependent dynamic elasticity of 35 thoracic and 16 abdominal human aortas in vitro described by a five component model. J Biomech 1985,18(8):613–620. 10.1016/0021-9290(85)90015-6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Button D, et al.: Clinical evaluation of the FloTrac/Vigileo system and two established continuous cardiac output monitoring devices in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth 2007,99(3):329–336. 10.1093/bja/aem188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. McLean AS, et al.: Comparison of cardiac output measurements in critically ill patients: FloTrac/Vigileo vs transthoracic Doppler echocardiography. Anaesth Intensive Care 2011,39(4):590–598.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Reid RD, Jayamaha J: The use of a cardiac output monitor to guide the initial fluid resuscitation in a patient with burns. Emerg Med J 2007,24(5):e32. 10.1136/emj.2006.043349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Sotomi Y, et al.: Reliability of a less-invasive cardiac output monitor in the perioperative period of a patient with severe dilated cardiomyopathy. Masui 2011,60(2):203–207.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Linton RA, Band DM, Haire KM: A new method of measuring cardiac output in man using lithium dilution. British J Anaesthesia 1993,71(2):262–266. 10.1093/bja/71.2.262Google Scholar
  42. Pearse RM, Ikram K, Barry J: Equipment review: an appraisal of the LiDCO plus method of measuring cardiac output. Crit Care 2004,8(3):190–195. 10.1186/cc2852PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Kurita T, et al.: Comparison of the accuracy of the lithium dilution technique with the thermodilution technique for measurement of cardiac output. British J Anaesthesia 1997,79(6):770–775. 10.1093/bja/79.6.770Google Scholar
  44. Costa MG, et al.: Continuous and intermittent cardiac output measurement in hyperdynamic conditions: pulmonary artery catheter vs. lithium dilution technique. Intensive Care Med 2008,34(2):257–263. 10.1007/s00134-007-0878-6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Kubicek WG, et al.: Development and evaluation of an impedance cardiac output system. Aerosp Med 1966,37(12):1208–1212.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Summers RL, et al.: Bench to bedside: electrophysiologic and clinical principles of noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring using impedance cardiography. Acad Emerg Med 2003,10(6):669–680. 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00054.xPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Gujjar AR, et al.: Non-invasive cardiac output by transthoracic electrical bioimpedence in post-cardiac surgery patients: comparison with thermodilution method. J Clin Monit Comput 2008,22(3):175–180. 10.1007/s10877-008-9119-yPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Van De Water JM, et al.: Impedance cardiography: the next vital sign technology? Chest 2003,123(6):2028–2033. 10.1378/chest.123.6.2028PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Maus TM, et al.: Cardiac output determination from endotracheally measured impedance cardiography: clinical evaluation of endotracheal cardiac output monitor. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2011,25(5):770–775. 10.1053/j.jvca.2010.12.017PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Fellahi JL, et al.: A comparison of endotracheal bioimpedance cardiography and transpulmonary thermodilution in cardiac surgery patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2012,26(2):217–222. 10.1053/j.jvca.2011.06.023PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wallace AW, et al.: Endotracheal cardiac output monitor. Anesthesiology 2000,92(1):178–189. 10.1097/00000542-200001000-00030PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Kossari N, Hufnagel G, Squara P: Bioreactance: a new tool for cardiac output and thoracic fluid content monitoring during hemodialysis. Hemodial Int 2009,13(4):512–517. 10.1111/j.1542-4758.2009.00386.xPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Benomar B, et al.: Fluid responsiveness predicted by noninvasive bioreactance-based passive leg raise test. Intensive Care Med 2010,36(11):1875–1881. 10.1007/s00134-010-1990-6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Raval NY, et al.: Multicenter evaluation of noninvasive cardiac output measurement by bioreactance technique. J Clin Monit Comput 2008,22(2):113–119. 10.1007/s10877-008-9112-5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Ohashi Y, et al.: Non-invasive hemodynamic assessment of non-pregnant, healthy pregnant and preeclamptic women using bioreactance. [corrected]. Revista Brasileira De Anestesiologia 2010,60(6):603–613. 335–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Squara P, et al.: Comparison of monitoring performance of Bioreactance vs. pulse contour during lung recruitment maneuvers. Crit Care 2009,13(4):R125. 10.1186/cc7981PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Karpman VL: The theoretical analysis of Fick's equation. On the centennial of the use of Fick's principle in physiology. Z Kardiol 1975,64(9):801–808.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Shepherd AP, et al.: Local control of tissue oxygen delivery and its contribution to the regulation of cardiac output. Am J Physiol 1973,225(3):747–755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Ehlers KC, et al.: Cardiac output measurements. A review of current techniques and research. Ann Biomed Eng 1986,14(3):219–239. 10.1007/BF02584272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. de Abreu MG, et al.: Partial carbon dioxide rebreathing: a reliable technique for noninvasive measurement of nonshunted pulmonary capillary blood flow. Crit Care Med 1997,25(4):675–683. 10.1097/00003246-199704000-00020PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Green DW: Comparison of cardiac outputs during major surgery using the Deltex CardioQ oesophageal Doppler monitor and the Novametrix-Respironics NICO: a prospective observational study. Int J Surg 2007,5(3):176–182. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2006.05.009PubMedGoogle Scholar


© Porhomayon et al; licensee Springer. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.