TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison between Modelflow® and echocardiography in the determination of cardiac output during and following pregnancy at rest and during exercise
AU - Meah, Victoria L.
AU - Backx, Karianne
AU - Shave, Rob E.
AU - Stöhr, Eric J.
AU - Cooper, Stephen Mark
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Faculty of Education.
PY - 2020/6/1
Y1 - 2020/6/1
N2 - During pregnancy, assessment of cardiac output (Q), a fundamental measure of cardiovascular function, provides important insight into maternal adaptation. However, methods for dynamic Q measurement require validation. The purpose of this study was to estimate the agreement of Q measured by echocardiography and Modelflow® at rest and during submaximal exercise in non-pregnant (n = 18), pregnant (n = 15, 22-26 weeks gestation) and postpartum women (n = 12, 12-16 weeks post-delivery). Simultaneous measurements of ˙ derived from echocardiography [criterion] and Modelflow® were obtained at rest and during low-moderate intensity (25% and 50% peak power output) cycling exercise and compared using Bland-Altman analysis and limits of agreement. Agreement between echocardiography and Modelflow® was poor in non-pregnant, pregnant and postpartum women at rest (mean difference ± SD:-1.1 ± 3.4;-1.2 ± 2.9;-1.9 ± 3.2 L. min-1), and this remained evident during exercise. The Modelflow® method is not recommended for Q determination in research involving young, healthy non-pregnant and pregnant women at rest or during dynamic challenge. Previously published Q data from studies utilising this method should be interpreted with caution.
AB - During pregnancy, assessment of cardiac output (Q), a fundamental measure of cardiovascular function, provides important insight into maternal adaptation. However, methods for dynamic Q measurement require validation. The purpose of this study was to estimate the agreement of Q measured by echocardiography and Modelflow® at rest and during submaximal exercise in non-pregnant (n = 18), pregnant (n = 15, 22-26 weeks gestation) and postpartum women (n = 12, 12-16 weeks post-delivery). Simultaneous measurements of ˙ derived from echocardiography [criterion] and Modelflow® were obtained at rest and during low-moderate intensity (25% and 50% peak power output) cycling exercise and compared using Bland-Altman analysis and limits of agreement. Agreement between echocardiography and Modelflow® was poor in non-pregnant, pregnant and postpartum women at rest (mean difference ± SD:-1.1 ± 3.4;-1.2 ± 2.9;-1.9 ± 3.2 L. min-1), and this remained evident during exercise. The Modelflow® method is not recommended for Q determination in research involving young, healthy non-pregnant and pregnant women at rest or during dynamic challenge. Previously published Q data from studies utilising this method should be interpreted with caution.
KW - Finger photoplethysmography
KW - Prenatal
KW - Submaximal exercise
KW - Validity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089684442&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.14198/JHSE.2022.171.12
DO - 10.14198/JHSE.2022.171.12
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85089684442
SN - 1988-5202
VL - 17
SP - 1
EP - 20
JO - Journal of Human Sport and Exercise
JF - Journal of Human Sport and Exercise
IS - 1
ER -