Filaire Laura, Perrault Hélène, Dauphin Claire, Chalard Aurélie, Pereira Bruno, Costes Frederic, Richard Ruddy
Thoracic and Endocrine Surgery, Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2025 May;45(3):e70005. doi: 10.1111/cpf.70005.
Inasmuch as they are deemed valid, noninvasive measurement of cardiac output techniques present advantages of ease and safety for use in humans. Few studies have compared the use of thoracic bioimpedance and inert gas rebreathing techniques for cardiac output (CO) assessment at rest and exercise. This manuscript reports on differences between Physioflow® and Innocor® CO measurements at rest and during cycling in a population of healthy subjects.
Fifty healthy subjects (52 ± 16 years) underwent an incremental cycle exercise testing (IET) during which standardized Physioflow® and Innocor® CO assessments were achieved. Measurements were completed in a subgroup of twelve subjects during two constant-load 10-min cycling bouts at moderate and high intensities.
Mean difference between Physioflow® and Innocor® was of 0.002 ± 0.98 l/min at rest and 0.38 ± 1.31 l/min during IET without statistical difference. Correlation coefficient values were higher for exercise (r = 0.83) than resting (r = 0.40) measurements. Good reproducibility of the two devices was observed on different graded exercises with intraindividual variability lower than 6%, except for rest Innocor® CO measurements (CV = 18%).
Physioflow® and Innocor® can be easily used concomitantly for noninvasive measurement of CO. Despite finding a strong agreement between techniques for exercise CO, results should not be interpreted as being interchangeable as values are derived from different flow measurements: systemic blood flow for Physioflow® and pulmonary blood flow for Innocor®. However, the concomitant use of both techniques could be of value in clinical setting for noninvasive intrathoracic shunt quantification.
鉴于非侵入性心输出量测量技术被认为是有效的，其在人体使用中具有操作简便和安全的优点。很少有研究比较过在静息和运动状态下使用胸生物阻抗和惰性气体重呼吸技术评估心输出量（CO）。本手稿报告了在健康受试者群体中，静息和骑行过程中Physioflow®和Innocor® CO测量值之间的差异。
五十名健康受试者（52±16岁）进行了递增式自行车运动测试（IET），在此期间完成了标准化的Physioflow®和Innocor® CO评估。在十二名受试者的亚组中，进行了两次持续10分钟的中等强度和高强度恒定负荷骑行测试，并完成测量。
静息时Physioflow®和Innocor®之间的平均差异为0.002±0.98升/分钟，IET期间为0.38±1.31升/分钟，无统计学差异。运动时的相关系数值（r = 0.83）高于静息时（r = 0.40）。在不同的分级运动中观察到这两种设备具有良好的重复性，个体内变异性低于6%，静息时Innocor® CO测量值除外（CV = 18%）。
Physioflow®和Innocor®可轻松同时用于CO的非侵入性测量。尽管发现运动CO测量技术之间有很强的一致性，但不应将结果解释为可互换的，因为这些值来自不同的流量测量：Physioflow®测量的是体循环血流量，Innocor®测量的是肺循环血流量。然而，在临床环境中，同时使用这两种技术对于无创性胸内分流定量可能具有价值。
