Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-20 |
| Number of pages | 20 |
| Journal | Journal of Human Sport and Exercise |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2020 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Abstract
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.
Keywords
- Finger photoplethysmography, Prenatal, Submaximal exercise, Validity
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Health Professions(all)
- Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2020, p. 1-20.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
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 - Funding information: The experiments in this study comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed. VLM's current affiliation is Program for Pregnancy and Postpartum Health, Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. VLM is the recipient of a postdoctoral fellowship award, funded by generous supporters of the Lois Hole Hospital for Women through the Women and Children's Health Research Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
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
VL - 17
SP - 1
EP - 20
JO - Journal of Human Sport and Exercise
JF - Journal of Human Sport and Exercise
IS - 1
ER -