Recent reports showed lack of effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheterization in critically ill medical patients and relatively late-stage surgical patients with organ failure. Since invasive monitoring requires critical care environments, the early hemodynamic patterns may have been missed. Ideally, early noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring systems, if reliable, could be used as the "front end" of invasive monitoring to supply more complete descriptions of circulatory pathophysiology.
To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring consisting of a new bioimpedance method for estimating cardiac output combined with arterial BP, pulse oximetry, and transcutaneous PO2 and PCO2; we compared this system of noninvasive monitoring with simultaneous invasive measurements to evaluate circulatory deficiencies in acutely ill patients shortly after hospital admission where invasive monitoring was not readily available. We also preliminarily explored early differences in temporal hemodynamic patterns of survivors and nonsurvivors.
Prospective comparison of simultaneous invasive and noninvasive measurements of circulatory function with retrospective analysis of data in university-run county hospitals, university hospitals and affiliated teaching hospitals, and a community private hospital.
We studied 680 patients, including 139 severely injured or hemorrhaging patients in the emergency department (ED), 129 medical (nontrauma) patients on admission to the ED, 274 high-risk surgical patients intraoperatively, and 138 patients recently admitted to the ICU.
A new noninvasive impedance device provided cardiac output estimations under conditions in which invasive thermodilution measurements were not usually applied. There were 2,192 simultaneous bioimpedance and thermodilution cardiac index measurements; the correlation coefficient, r = 0.85, r2 = 0.73, p < 0.001. The precision and bias was -0.124+/-0.75 L/min/m2. Both invasive and noninvasive monitoring systems provide similar information and identified episodes of hypotension, low cardiac index, arterial hemoglobin desaturation, low transcutaneous O2, high transcutaneous CO2, and low oxygen consumption before and during initial resuscitation. The limitations of noninvasive systems were described.
Noninvasive monitoring systems gave continuous displays of physiologic data that provided information allowing early recognition of low flow and poor tissue perfusion that were more pronounced in the nonsurvivors. Noninvasive systems may be acceptable alternatives where invasive monitoring is not available.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 December 2025.
All research outputs
#12,359,716
of 34,410,798 outputs
Outputs from CHEST
#9,903
of 18,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,368
of 155,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CHEST
#54
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,798 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,094 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 155,701 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
