Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byDennis Carson Modified over 5 years ago
1
Comparison of two methods for cardiac output measurement in critically ill patients†
E. Saraceni, S. Rossi, P. Persona, M. Dan, S. Rizzi, M. Meroni, C. Ori British Journal of Anaesthesia Volume 106, Issue 5, Pages (May 2011) DOI: /bja/aer030 Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions
2
Fig 1 Distribution of the differences between the two systems of measurement. British Journal of Anaesthesia , DOI: ( /bja/aer030) Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions
3
Fig 2 Scatter plot showing values of CO provided by thermodilution vs CO provided by FloTrac/Vigileo (both 1.07 and 1.10 versions). British Journal of Anaesthesia , DOI: ( /bja/aer030) Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions
4
Fig 3 The Bland–Altman analysis of CO of all enrolled patients. Thermodilution, pulmonary artery thermodilution; Vigileo, FloTrac/Vigileo device. British Journal of Anaesthesia , DOI: ( /bja/aer030) Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions
5
Fig 4 The Bland–Altman analysis for the two different software versions; (a) software version 1.07 and (b) software version 1.10. British Journal of Anaesthesia , DOI: ( /bja/aer030) Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions
6
Fig 5 The Bland–Altman analysis for the two different software versions. To exclude the mixing of data, we calculated the mean difference between measurements for each patient; each point represents one patient. (a) Software version 1.07 and (b) software version 1.10. British Journal of Anaesthesia , DOI: ( /bja/aer030) Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.