@Article{chd.12813,
AUTHOR = {Vidhushei Yogeswaran, Rahul Kanade, Camilo Mejia, Ayotola Fatola, Srikanth Kothapalli, Maria Najam, Harigopal Sandhyavenu, Mounika Angirekula, Karim Osma, Mathews Jessey, Donald Hagler, Alexander C. Egbe},
TITLE = {Role of Doppler echocardiography for assessing right ventricular cardiac output in patients with atrial septal defect},
JOURNAL = {Structural and Congenital Heart Disease},
VOLUME = {14},
YEAR = {2019},
NUMBER = {5},
PAGES = {713--719},
URL = {http://www.techscience.com/schd/v14n5/38850},
ISSN = {3071-1738},
ABSTRACT = {<b>Background:</b> Although Doppler echocardiography is routinely used to assess left
ventricle cardiac output, there are limited data about the feasibility of Doppler echo‐
cardiography for right ventricular (RV) cardiac output assessment in patients with
left‐to‐right shunt. The purpose of the study was to determine the correlation be‐
tween Doppler‐derived and Fick‐derived RV cardiac index (CI), and the interobserver
correlation in Doppler‐derived RV CI assessment.<br/>
<b>Methods:</b> Retrospective study of patients (age ≥18 years) with unrepaired atrial septal
defect who underwent cardiac catheterization and echocardiography (within 3 days),
2004‐2017. RV CI was calculated using the hydraulic orifice formula: [.785 × (right
ventricle outflow tract diameter)<sup>2</sup> × right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) time veloc‐
ity integral × heart rate]/body surface area.<br/>
<b>Results:</b> A total of 128 patients (age 52 ± 17 years; female 88 [69%]) met the inclusion
criteria. There was a modest correlation between Doppler‐derived and Fick‐derived
RV CI (r = .57, P < .001), and the mean difference between Doppler‐derived and Fick‐
derived RV CI was −.3 (95% confidence interval of agreement, −.8 to +.9) L/min/m<sup>2</sup>. 
There was also a modest correlation between Doppler‐derived RV CI from observer
#1 and observer #2 (r = .62, P < .001), and the mean difference between Doppler‐de‐
rived RV CI from observer #1 and observer #2 was −.2 (95% confidence interval of
agreement, −.9 to +.6).<br/>
<b>Conclusions:</b> The current study demonstrated a modest correlation between
Doppler‐derived and Fick‐derived RV cardiac output, and a modest interobserver
correlation in Doppler‐derived RV cardiac output assessment. Further studies are
required to validate these results and to explore other potential applications such as
in patients with chronic pulmonary regurgitation.},
DOI = {10.1111/chd.12813}
}