Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In vitro evaluation of an ultrasonic cardiac output monitoring (USCOM) device

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Non-invasive cardiac output monitoring techniques provide high yield, low risk mechanisms to identify and individually treat shock in the emergency setting. The non-invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitoring (USCOM) device uses an ultrasound probe applied externally to the chest; however limitations exist with previous validation strategies. This study presents the in vitro validation of the USCOM device against calibrated flow sensors and compares user variability in simulated healthy and septic conditions. A validated mock circulation loop was used to simulate each condition with a range of cardiac outputs (2–10 l/min) and heart rates (50–95 bpm). Three users with varying degrees of experience using the USCOM device measured cardiac output and heart rate by placing the ultrasound probe on the mock aorta. Users were blinded to the condition, heart rate and cardiac output which were randomly generated. Results were reported as linear regression slope (β). All users estimated heart rate in both conditions with reasonable accuracy (β = 0.86–1.01), while cardiac output in the sepsis condition was estimated with great precision (β = 1.03–1.04). Users generally overestimated the cardiac output in the healthy simulation (β = 1.07–1.26) and reported greater difficulty estimating reduced cardiac output compared with higher values. Although there was some variability between users, particularly in the healthy condition (P < 0.01), all estimations were within a clinically acceptable range. In this study the USCOM provided a suitable measurement of cardiac output and heart rate when compared with our in vitro system. It is a promising technique to assist with the identification and treatment of shock.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Drummond KE, Murphy E. Minimally invasive cardiac output monitors. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2011;12(1):5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bernard S. The patient with shock: Is there any role for the non-invasive monitoring of cardiac output? Emerg Med Australas. 2005;17:189–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Meyer S, Todd D, Wright I, Gortner L, Reynolds G. Review article: non-invasive assessment of cardiac output with portable continuous-wave Doppler ultrasound. Emerg Med Australas. 2008;20:201–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1368–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Marik PE. Noninvasive cardiac output monitors: a state-of the-art review. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012;27(1):121–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ameloot K, Van De Vijver K, Broch O, et al. Nexfin noninvasive continuous hemodynamic monitoring: validation against continuous pulse contour and intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution derived cardiac output in critically ill patients. Sci World J. 2013;2013:11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Corley A, Barnett AG, Mullany D, Fraser JF. Nurse-determined assessment of cardiac output. Comparing a non-invasive cardiac output device and pulmonary artery catheter: a prospective observational study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46:1291–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tan HL, Pinder M, Parsons R, Roberts B, van Heerden PV. Clinical evaluation of USCOM ultrasonic cardiac output monitor in cardiac surgical patients in intensive care unit. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94(3):287–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Phillips R. Assessment of the clinical utility of an ultrasonic monitor of cardiac output (the USCOM) and agreement with thermodilution measurement. Crit Care Resusc. 2010;12(3):209–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Critchley LA, Peng ZY, Fok BS, Lee A, Phillips RA. Testing the reliability of a new ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, the USCOM, by using aortic flowprobes in anesthetized dogs. Anesth Analg. 2005;100(3):748–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Thom O, Taylor DM, Wolfe RE, et al. Comparison of a supra-sternal cardiac output monitor (USCOM) with the pulmonary artery catheter. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103(6):800–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. van Lelyveld-Haas LE, van Zanten AR, Borm GF, Tjan DH. Clinical validation of the non-invasive cardiac output monitor USCOM-1A in critically ill patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2008;25:917–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wong LSG, Yong BH, Young KK, et al. Comparison of the USCOM ultrasound cardiac output monitor with pulmonary artery catheter thermodilution in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2008;14:1038–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lichtenthal PR, Phillips RA, Sloniger JA, Copeland JG. USCOM-non invasive Doppler—are cardiac output measurements accurate in both infants and adults? Anesthesiology. 2006;105:A466.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Alhashemi J, Cecconi M, Hofer C. Cardiac output monitoring: an integrative perspective. Crit Care. 2011;15(2):214.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gregory SD, Greatrex N, Timms D, Gaddum N, Pearcy MJ, Fraser JF. Simulation and enhancement of a cardiovascular device test rig. J Simul. 2010;4:34–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Timms D, Gregory S, Greatrex N, Pearcy MJ, Fraser JF, Steinseifer U. A compact mock circulation loop for the in vitro testing of cardiovascular devices. Artif Organs. 2011;35(4):384–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gregory SD, Stevens M, Timms D, Pearcy M. Replication of the Frank-Starling response in a mock circulation loop. In: Proceedings of the annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBS, Boston, USA; 2011.

  19. Michard F, Teboul JL. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients—a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121:2000–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Maitland K, Kiguli S, Opoka RO, et al. Mortality after fluid bolus in African children with severe infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2483–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Phillips RA, Hood SG, Jacobson BM, West MJ, Wan L, May CN. Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) accuracy and efficacy compared with flow probe and transcutaneous Doppler (USCOM): an ovine cardiac output validation. Crit Care Res Pract. 2012;2012. doi:10.1155/2012/621496.

  22. Dark PM, Singer M. The validity of trans-esophageal Doppler ultrasonography as a measure of cardiac output in critically ill adults. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:2060–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Arora D, Chand R, Mehta Y, Trehan N. Cardiac output estimation after off-pump coronary artery bypass: a comparison of two different techniques. Ann Card Anaesth. 2007;10:132–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chand R, Mehta Y, Trehan N. Cardiac output estimation with a new Doppler device after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2006;20:315–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chong SW, Peyton PJ. A meta-analysis of the accuracy and precision of the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM). Anaesthesia. 2012;67(11):1266–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chan JS, Segara D, Nair P. Measurement of cardiac output with a non-invasive continuous wave Doppler device versus the pulmonary artery catheter: a comparative study. Crit Care Resusc. 2006;8:309–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dey I, Sprivulis P. Emergency physicians can reliably assess emergency department patient cardiac output using the USCOM continuous wave Doppler cardiac output monitor. Emerg Med Australas. 2005;17:193–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nguyen HB, Losey T, Rasmussen J, et al. Interrater reliability of cardiac output measurements by transcutaneous Doppler ultrasound: implications for noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2006;24(7):828–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schnedlitz M. PVC phantoms for photoacoustic methods, In: Photoacoustic Institute, Karl-Franzens University Graz; 2011. p. 42.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to recognize the financial assistance provided by The Prince Charles Hospital Foundation (SEQ2013-07) and University of Queensland. John F. Fraser acknowledges his fellowship support from the Office of Health and Medical Research, Queensland Health.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Shaun D. Gregory, Sara Diab, Chris Anstey & John F. Fraser

  2. Innovative Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology Laboratory, Critical Care Research Group, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Shaun D. Gregory, Sara Diab & John F. Fraser

  3. Emergency Department, Redcliffe Hospital, Redcliffe, QLD, Australia

    Helena Cooney

  4. Intensive Care Unit, Nambour Hospital, Nambour, QLD, Australia

    Chris Anstey

  5. Emergency Department, Nambour Hospital, Nambour, QLD, Australia

    Ogilvie Thom

Authors
  1. Shaun D. Gregory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helena Cooney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sara Diab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chris Anstey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ogilvie Thom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John F. Fraser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaun D. Gregory.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gregory, S.D., Cooney, H., Diab, S. et al. In vitro evaluation of an ultrasonic cardiac output monitoring (USCOM) device. J Clin Monit Comput 30, 69–75 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-015-9685-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-015-9685-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation