Background: The feasibility of the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM)applying for determining ultrafiltration (UF) endpoints during acute heart failure (AHF) treatments was evaluated. Methods: AHF patients were randomly assigned to UF (U, N=20) and USCOM+UF (UU, N=20) groups. The primary endpoint was differences in the hemodynamics of patients receiving UF alone or UF+USCOM. A prediction model was established.
Age range
18 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Cardiac output was monitored using a non-invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, which employed transaortic or transpulmonary Doppler flow tracing and estimated the valve area using a patient's height to estimate their cardiac output.
Timeframe: One week
Cardiac output was monitored using a non-invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, which employed transaortic or transpulmonary Doppler flow tracing and estimated the valve area using a patient's height to estimate their cardiac output.
Timeframe: One week
Cardiac output was monitored using a non-invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, which employed transaortic or transpulmonary Doppler flow tracing and estimated the valve area using a patient's height to estimate their cardiac output.
Timeframe: One week
Cardiac output was monitored using a non-invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, which employed transaortic or transpulmonary Doppler flow tracing and estimated the valve area using a patient's height to estimate their cardiac output.
Timeframe: One week
Cardiac output was monitored using a non-invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, which employed transaortic or transpulmonary Doppler flow tracing and estimated the valve area using a patient's height to estimate their cardiac output.
Timeframe: One week
Cardiac output was monitored using a non-invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, which employed transaortic or transpulmonary Doppler flow tracing and estimated the valve area using a patient's height to estimate their cardiac output.
Timeframe: One week
Cardiac output was monitored using a non-invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, which employed transaortic or transpulmonary Doppler flow tracing and estimated the valve area using a patient's height to estimate their cardiac output.
Timeframe: One week
Cardiac output was monitored using a non-invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, which employed transaortic or transpulmonary Doppler flow tracing and estimated the valve area using a patient's height to estimate their cardiac output.
Timeframe: One week
Cardiac output was monitored using a non-invasive ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, which employed transaortic or transpulmonary Doppler flow tracing and estimated the valve area using a patient's height to estimate their cardiac output.
Timeframe: One week
Brain natriuretic peptide
Timeframe: One week