English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Two clinical studies of cardiac output determination using the pressure-pulse technique are presented. The Warner pressure-pulse method of estimating cardiac output was compared with the dye-dilution technique in 17 patients. Both the Warner and a variation of the Bourgeosis pressure-pulse methods were compared with thermodilution in 13 patients. The Warner vs dye-dilution comparison resulted in a poor correlation coefficient (r = 0.61). Values for the Warner equation calibration constant (K) were nonstationary, varying with time from --69 to 135% of the initial value in individual patients. When thermodilution was compared with the two methods, the correlation was poor (r = 0.58 for the Warner method; r = 0.50 for the modified Bourgeois method). The Warner and a variation of the Bourgeois pressure-pulse methods for monitoring the cardiac output of critically ill patients with widely varying mean arterial pressures are not sufficiently reliable for clinical decision-making.

Clinical comparison of pressure-pulse and indicator-dilution cardiac output determination.