无创血流动力学心功能检测仪与心脏超声测量每搏输出量的一致性与相关性
The Consistency and Correlation of Stroke Volume Measurements between Noninvasive Hemodynamic and Cardiac Monitor and Echocardiography
摘要: 目的:评估无创同步多频阻抗血流动力学仪(深圳依可YECO-A03)和心脏彩超(飞利浦Affiniti 70和EPIQ 7c,S5-1探头,频率1.3~2.6/1.6~3.2 MHz)所测每搏输出量(stroke volume, SV)的一致性与相关性。方法:同步采用超声与同步多频阻抗法对85例心血管疾病患者进行SV测量。若多频阻抗测量过程受到干扰,则选取超声检测后最近的一段平稳数据进行对比分析。结果:超声SV (US_SV)与同步多频阻抗法SV (YECO_SV)的线性回归方程为:US_SV = 0.88 × YECO_SV + 8.69 (R² = 0.51)。平均百分比偏差为0.7%,一致性限值(limits of agreement, LoA)为−19.5 mL至18.0 mL,最大百分比误差(maximal percentage error, MPE)为26.8%。结论:心脏超声二维Simpson法与同步多频阻抗法所测得的SV具有等效性,在临床应用中可互相替代。
Abstract: Purposes: To evaluate the consistency and correlation of stroke volume (SV) measurements between a noninvasive synchronized multi-frequency impedance cardiography (MF-ICG) device (YECO-A03, Shenzhen Yike) and echocardiography (Philips Affiniti 70 and EPIQ 7c with S5-1 probe, 1.3~2.6/1.6~3.2 MHz). Methods: SV was measured simultaneously by echocardiography and MF-ICG in 85 cardiovascular patients. If the MF-ICG measurement was interfered with, a stable segment immediately after the ultrasound measurement was selected for analysis. Results: The linear regression between ultrasound-derived SV (US_SV) and MF-ICG-derived SV (YECO_SV) was US_SV = 0.88 × YECO_SV + 8.69 (R2 = 0.51). The mean percentage bias was 0.7%, the limits of agreement (LoA) were −19.5 mL to 18.0 mL, and the maximal percentage error (MPE) was 26.8%. Conclusions: SV measurements obtained by echocardiography (2D Simpson’s method) and synchronized multi-frequency impedance cardiography are equivalent and can be used interchangeably in clinical practice.
文章引用:王芳, 邓思萌, 田小平, 齐向龙, 宋飞, 庞乃栋, 李金喜, 高一群, 周红智, 田颖. 无创血流动力学心功能检测仪与心脏超声测量每搏输出量的一致性与相关性[J]. 临床医学进展, 2025, 15(10): 1926-1932. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2025.15102964

参考文献

[1] Müller, C. (2025) Impedance Cardiography in the Diagnosis of Congestive Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus, 17, e77461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[2] Sanders, M., Servaas, S. and Slagt, C. (2020) Accuracy and Precision of Non-Invasive Cardiac Output Monitoring by Electrical Cardiometry: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, 34, 433-460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[3] Schlöglhofer, T., Gilly, H. and Schima, H. (2014) Semi-Invasive Measurement of Cardiac Output Based on Pulse Contour: A Review and Analysis. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, 61, 452-479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] 张燕飞, 陈明秋, 王章星. 胸阻抗法无创心输出量监测在不同胎龄早产儿中的应用效果分析[J]. 特别健康, 2024(1): 113-114.
[5] 汪高磊, 邢宇彤, 戚家峰, 等. 胸阻抗法对不同术式肺叶切除患者围术期心功能变化的评价[J]. 黑龙江医药科学, 2018, 41(3): 83-85.
[6] 董伟. 胸阻抗法无创血流动力学监测评估PPHN患儿心功能的临床研究[D]: [博士学位论文]. 济南: 济南大学, 2019.
[7] Bernstein, D.P. (1986) A New Stroke Volume Equation for Thoracic Electrical Bioimpedance. Critical Care Medicine, 14, 904-909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Bland, J.M. and Altman, D.G. (1986) Statistical Methods for Assessing Agreement between Two Methods of Clinical Measurement. The Lancet, 327, 307-310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[9] Bland, J.M. and Altman, D.G. (1999) Measuring Agreement in Method Comparison Studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 135-160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10] Jensen, L., Yakimets, J. and Teo, K.K. (1995) A Review of Impedance Cardiography. Heart & Lung, 24, 183-193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Abdou, N., Rowisha, M., Elmahdy, H., Tolba, O., Shihab, N. and Elmesiry, A. (2025) FoCUS and Non-Invasive Hemodynamics Monitoring in Neonatal Sepsis. European Journal of Pediatrics, 184, Article No. 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] Critchley, L.A.H. and Critchley, J.A.J.H. (1999) A Meta-Analysis of Studies Using Bias and Precision Statistics to Compare Cardiac Output Measurement Techniques. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, 15, 85-91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Guzzetti, E., Capoulade, R., Tastet, L., Garcia, J., Le Ven, F., Arsenault, M., et al. (2020) Estimation of Stroke Volume and Aortic Valve Area in Patients with Aortic Stenosis: A Comparison of Echocardiography versus Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography, 33, 953-963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Rigolli, M., Anandabaskaran, S., Christiansen, J.P. and Whalley, G.A. (2016) Bias Associated with Left Ventricular Quantification by Multimodality Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Open Heart, 3, e000388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Dele-Michael, A.O., Fujikura, K., Devereux, R.B., Islam, F., Hriljac, I., Wilson, S.R., et al. (2013) Left Ventricular Stroke Volume Quantification by Contrast Echocardiography—Comparison of Linear and Flow-Based Methods to Cardiac Magnetic Resonance. Echocardiography, 30, 880-888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]