↓ Skip to main content

Pulmonary Artery Catheter (PAC) Accuracy and Efficacy Compared with Flow Probe and Transcutaneous Doppler (USCOM): An Ovine Cardiac Output Validation

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care Research & Practice, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 214)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pulmonary Artery Catheter (PAC) Accuracy and Efficacy Compared with Flow Probe and Transcutaneous Doppler (USCOM): An Ovine Cardiac Output Validation
Published in
Critical Care Research & Practice, May 2012
DOI 10.1155/2012/621496
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert A. Phillips, Sally G. Hood, Beverley M. Jacobson, Malcolm J. West, Li Wan, Clive N. May

Abstract

Background. The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) is an accepted clinical method of measuring cardiac output (CO) despite no prior validation. The ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM) is a noninvasive alternative to PAC using Doppler ultrasound (CW). We compared PAC and USCOM CO measurements against a gold standard, the aortic flow probe (FP), in sheep at varying outputs. Methods. Ten conscious sheep, with implanted FPs, had measurements of CO by FP, USCOM, and PAC, at rest and during intervention with inotropes and vasopressors. Results. CO measurements by FP, PAC, and USCOM were 4.0 ± 1.2 L/min, 4.8 ± 1.5 L/min, and 4.0 ± 1.4 L/min, respectively, (n = 280, range 1.9 L/min to 11.7 L/min). Percentage bias and precision between FP and PAC, and FP and USCOM was -17 and 47%, and 1 and 36%, respectively. PAC under-measured Dobutamine-induced CO changes by 20% (relative 66%) compared with FP, while USCOM measures varied from FP by 3% (relative 10%). PAC reliably detected -30% but not +40% CO changes, as measured by receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC), while USCOM reliably detected ±5% changes in CO (AUC > 0.70). Conclusions. PAC demonstrated poor accuracy and sensitivity as a measure of CO. USCOM provided equivalent measurements to FP across a sixfold range of outputs, reliably detecting ±5% changes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Master 6 15%
Other 4 10%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 44%
Engineering 8 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Mathematics 1 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 8 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 19 January 2015.
All research outputs
#3,226,566
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care Research & Practice
#23
of 214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,319
of 176,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care Research & Practice
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 176,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.