Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMeah, Victoria L.
dc.contributor.authorBackx, Karianne
dc.contributor.authorShave, Rob
dc.contributor.authorStöhr, Eric J.
dc.contributor.authorCooper, Stephen-Mark
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-18T13:00:56Z
dc.date.available2020-09-18T13:00:56Z
dc.date.issued2020-07-23
dc.identifier.citationMeah, V.L., Backx, K., Shave, R.E., Stöhr, E.J. and Cooper, S.M. (2020) 'Comparison between Modelflow® and echocardiography in the determination of cardiac output during and following pregnancy at rest and during exercise', Journal of Human Sport and Exercise.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1988-5202
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10369/11143
dc.descriptionArticle published in Journal of Human Sport and Exercise on 23 July 2020, available open access at: https://doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2022.171.12.en_US
dc.description.abstractDuring 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 Q ̇ 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.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherFacultad de Educaciónen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJournal of Human Sport and Exercise;
dc.titleComparison between Modelflow® and echocardiography in the determination of cardiac output during and following pregnancy at rest and during exerciseen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2022.171.12
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-06-29
rioxxterms.funderCardiff Metropolitan Universityen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectCardiff Metropolian (Internal)en_US
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2020-09-18
rioxxterms.funder.project37baf166-7129-4cd4-b6a1-507454d1372een_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record