Northridge D B, Findlay I N, Wilson J, Henderson E, Dargie H J
Department of Cardiology, Western Infirmary, Glasgow.
Br Heart J. 1990 Feb;63(2):93-7. doi: 10.1136/hrt.63.2.93.
Cardiac output measured by thermodilution in 25 patients within 24 hours of acute myocardial infarction was compared with cardiac output measured by Doppler echocardiography (24 patients) and electrical bioimpedance (25 patients). The mean (range) cardiac outputs measured by Doppler (4.03 (2.2-6.0) 1/min) and electrical bioimpedance (3.79 (1.1-6.2) 1/min) were similar to the mean thermodilution value (3.95 (2.1-6.2) 1/min). Both non-invasive techniques agreed closely with thermodilution in most patients. None the less, three results with each method disagreed with thermodilution by more than 1 1/min. Both non-invasive techniques were reproducible and accurate in most patients with acute myocardial infarction. Doppler echocardiography was time consuming and technically demanding. Electrical bioimpedance was simple to use and had the additional advantage of allowing continuous monitoring of the cardiac output.
对25例急性心肌梗死患者在发病24小时内通过热稀释法测得的心输出量，与通过多普勒超声心动图（24例患者）和电阻抗法（25例患者）测得的心输出量进行了比较。通过多普勒测得的平均（范围）心输出量为4.03（2.2 - 6.0）升/分钟，电阻抗法测得的为3.79（1.1 - 6.2）升/分钟，与热稀释法的平均值3.95（2.1 - 6.2）升/分钟相似。在大多数患者中，两种非侵入性技术测得的结果与热稀释法的结果非常接近。然而，每种方法都有三个结果与热稀释法的差异超过1升/分钟。在大多数急性心肌梗死患者中，两种非侵入性技术都具有可重复性且准确。多普勒超声心动图耗时且对技术要求高。电阻抗法使用简便，还有能连续监测心输出量的额外优势。
