| Title |
Agreement between stroke volume measured by oesophageal Doppler and uncalibrated pulse contour analysis during fluid loads in severe aortic stenosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10877-015-9666-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lars Øivind Høiseth, Ingrid Elise Hoff, Ove Andreas Hagen, Svein Aslak Landsverk, Knut Arvid Kirkebøen |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this analysis was to study agreement and trending of stroke volume measured by oesophageal Doppler and 3rd generation Vigileo during fluid loads in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Observational study in 32 patients (30 analyzed) scheduled for aortic valve replacement due to severe aortic stenosis. After induction of anesthesia and before start of surgery, hemodynamic registrations for 1 min were obtained before and after a fluid load. Agreement between stroke volume measured by oesophageal Doppler (SVOD) and Vigileo (SVVig) was evaluated in Bland-Altman plot and trending in four-quadrant and polar plots. Bias ± limits of agreement (LOA) between SVOD and SVVig was 24 ± 37 ml (percentage error 45 %). Concordance of the two methods from before to after a fluid load was 100 %. Angular bias ± LOA was 12° ± 28°. Absolute values of SVOD and SVVig agreed poorly, but changes were highly concordant during fluid loads in aortic stenosis patients. The angular agreement indicated acceptable trending. The two measurement methods are not interchangeable in patients with aortic stenosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 19% |
| Researcher | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 52% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 10% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 February 2015.
All research outputs
#18,393,912
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#496
of 668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,720
of 352,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,508 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.