ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Agreement and trending ability between non-invasive and invasive hemodynamic monitoring during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: a prospective observational study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06473818 (Non-invasive vs Invasive Cardiac Output Monitoring in Patients Under Spinal Anesthesia During Cesarean Section), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Non-invasive vs Invasive Cardiac Output Monitoring in Patients Under Spinal Anesthesia During Cesarean Section: a Prospective Observational Study
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The uteroplacental circulation lacks autoregulatory capacity and therefore relies predominantly on the maternal cardiac output (CO). Monitoring hemodynamic parameters such as CO can provide guidance for anesthesia decisions during cesarean section. We evaluated the agreement and trending ability of maternal CO, stroke volume (SV), and stroke volume variation (SVV) between two clinically used hemodynamic monitoring technologies, the non-invasive NICAP/NICCO system and the invasive FloTrac/Vigileo system, in patients undergoing elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. Methods: Forty-five patients were included in the final analysis. Prior to anesthesia, the patients' hemodynamic parameters, including CO, SV, and SVV, were simultaneously monitored using both the NICAP/NICCO and Flotrac/Vigileo. The baseline values and continuous dynamic data of CO, SV, and SVV were collected over a 15-min period following spinal anesthesia and recorded at 20-s intervals. Repeated-measures Bland-Altman analysis, percent error (PE) and ICC (2, 1) were employed to assess the agreement between the two monitoring methods. Trending ability was evaluated using four-quadrant plot analysis. Results: The repeated-measures Bland-Altman analysis indicated that the biases of CO, SV, and SVV were -0.89 L/min (95% limits of agreement: -4.08 to 2.29 L/min; PE, 51.24%), -10.53 mL (95% limits of agreement: -46.26 to 25.20 mL; PE, 46.84%), and 2.44% (95% limits of agreement: -6.82 to 11.69%; PE, 77.95%), respectively. The results of the ICC indicated that the values of CO, SV, and SVV were 0.2578 (95% CI: 0.1067 to 0.3772), 0.4682 (95% CI: 0.2397 to 0.6111), and 0.1813 (95% CI: 0.0686 to 0.2779), respectively. Four-quadrant plot analysis demonstrated the concordance rates for CO, SV, and SVV were 44.59, 32.39, and 21.48%, respectively. Conclusion: During cesarean section under spinal anesthesia, the non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring employing NICAP/NICCO technology exhibits poor agreement and trending ability with the invasive hemodynamic monitoring utilizing Flotrac/Vigileo technology. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT06473818.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.