Cited by 12Hemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersCardiovascular and exercise physiology

Evaluation of stroke volume estimation during orthostatic stress: the utility of Modelflow

Abstract

Advanced blood pressure monitoring devices contain algorithms that permit estimation of stroke volume (SV). Modelflow (Finapres Medical Systems) is one common method to non-invasively estimate beat-to-beat SV. However, Modelflow accuracy during profound reductions in SV is unclear. We aimed to compare SV estimation by Modelflow and echocardiography, at rest and during orthostatic challenge. We tested 13 individuals (age 24 ± 2 years; 7 female) using combined head-up tilt and graded lower body negative pressure, continued until presyncope. SV was derived by both Modelflow and echocardiography on multiple occasions while supine, during orthostatic stress, and at presyncope. SV index (SVI) was determined by normalising SV for body surface area. Bias and limits of agreement were determined using Bland-Altman analyses. Two one-sided tests (TOST) examined equivalency. Across all timepoints, Modelflow estimates of SV (73.2 ± 1.6 ml) were strongly correlated with echocardiography estimates (66.1 ± 1.3 ml) (r = 0.56, P < 0.001) with a bias of +7.1 ± 21.1 ml. Bias across all timepoints was further improved when SV was indexed (+3.6 ± 12.0 ml.m -2 ). Likewise, when assessing responses relative to baseline, Modelflow estimates of SV (-23.4 ± 1.4%) were strongly correlated with echocardiography estimates (-19.2 ± 1.3%) (r = 0.76, P < 0.001), with minimal bias (-4.2 ± 13.1%). TOST testing revealed equivalency to within 15% of the clinical standard for SV and SVI, both expressed as absolute values and relative to baseline. Modelflow can be used to track changes in SV during profound orthostatic stress, with accuracy enhanced with correction relative to baseline values or body size. These data support the use of Modelflow estimates of SV for autonomic function testing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mbp.0000000000000671

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lucci, V.-E. M., Parsons, I. T., Hockin, B. C. D., & Claydon, V. E.
Affiliations
  • Simon Fraser University (CA)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Claydon, Victoria E.
Venue
Blood Pressure Monitoring
Published
2023-08-24
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
330-337
ISSN
1359-5237 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386407463
Cited by
12
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1
FWCI
3.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Blood Pressure Monitoring (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Discovery RGPIN/02982-2021, Discovery Accelerator Supplement RGPAS/2021-00012-2021)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
stroke volume estimation, orthostatic stress, head-up tilt, lower body negative pressure, presyncope, echocardiography, autonomic function testing, stroke volume index, non-invasive blood pressure monitoring
MeSH terms
Standing Position, Adult, Blood Pressure, Echocardiography, Female, Humans, Stroke Volume, Syncope, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review