Skip to content

Noninvasive Measurement of CO Using Impedance Cardiography in Patients With CHD

Noninvasive Measurement of Cardiac Output Using Impedance Cardiography in Patients With Congenital Heart Disease

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02326649
Enrollment
21
Registered
2014-12-29
Start date
2014-12-31
Completion date
2016-03-31
Last updated
2017-04-12

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Congenital Heart Disease

Keywords

cardiac output

Brief summary

This study will test the capability of a non-invasive instrument (the PhysioFlow impedance cardiography instrument) to measure cardiac output in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). This instrument works by placing electrodes on the skin of a patient and measuring electrical impedance through the chest, which is proportional to blood volume and blood flow at any given time. The instrument has been validated in patients with structurally normal hearts, but in the only two studies using it for patients with CHD, it was deemed too inaccurate for clinical use. The manufacturer of the device would require access to data on the patients in order to improve its accuracy, and that has not been feasible thus far. This study would begin by comparing cardiac output based on the PhysioFlow monitor to standard techniques, then after possible changes to the instrument to enhance accuracy, would test the instrument again in the same way.

Detailed description

The measurement of cardiac output (CO) is important for a wide variety of patients under multiple conditions. At present, gold standard techniques for measurement of CO include velocity encoded phase contrast MRI. Both of these techniques are valid in patients with structural CHD. Disadvantages of these techniques include the requirement of significant time and expertise, and the high cost and anesthesia requirement. Accurate, non-invasive tools to measure CO could be extremely valuable for patients with CHD that require one-time of continuous monitoring of CO, such as during surgery, in intensive care settings, during other diagnostic testing, and during different physiologic states such as sleep and exercise. This study would begin by comparing cardiac output based on the PhysioFlow monitor to cardiac outout by MRI. Impedance cardiography is performed by placing electrodes on the thorax and neck to measure electrical impedance over time. Cardiac output is derived from these measurements. The technique has been studied, validated, and used extensively in adults and has also been shown to be valid in children with structurally normal hearts. In contrast, recent studies of children with CHD have shown a relatively poor agreement between impedance cardiography and both thermodilution technique and velocity encoded phase contrast MRI. The reasons for the poor agreement in CHD patients is not yet understood. There are proprietary algorithms in each impedance device that use the raw data to calculate and report cardiac output. If the physiologic and/or anatomic differences of patients with CHD require changing the algorithm within each system to account for such differences, that needs to be done to each system. In order to do this, owners of any given device (PhysioFlow, NeuMeDx Inc. in this case) need access to the raw data in order to alter the algorithm. This study will involve a concerted effort between investigators at RCHSD, UCSD, and NeuMeDx

Interventions

DEVICEPhysioflow

impedance cardiography instrument that measures cardiac output non-invasively

Sponsors

University of California, San Diego
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Any form of congenital heart disease * Any age

Exclusion criteria

* Subjects with significant clinical skin reactions to electrodes such as excessive pain and/or skin inflammation, or significant previous skin reaction * Subjects who are not able to provide consent * Subjects with pacemaker

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Mean Difference in Stroke Volume Between CMR and SMIC2 hoursMean difference in stroke volume (SV) between CMR and SMIC measurements in ml

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Diagnosis, Age, and Body Size of Subjects
Overall
21
Total21

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicDiagnosis, Age, and Body Size of Subjects
Age, Continuous18 years
Body Surface Area1.67 meters squared
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected— Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
8 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
13 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 33
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 33

Outcome results

Primary

Mean Difference in Stroke Volume Between CMR and SMIC

Mean difference in stroke volume (SV) between CMR and SMIC measurements in ml

Time frame: 2 hours

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
SMIC and CMRMean Difference in Stroke Volume Between CMR and SMIC1.7 ml
p-value: 0.47paired t-test
Comparison: Intercept for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressurep-value: 0.25595% CI: [-5.295, 18.417]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Heart rate delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressurep-value: 0.2595% CI: [-0.395, 1.395]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Diastolic BP delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressurep-value: 0.18395% CI: [-1.081, 0.227]Regression, Linear
Comparison: Systolic BP delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressurep-value: 0.23895% CI: [-0.411, 1.526]Regression, Linear

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026