@article{Meah_Backx_Shave_Stöhr_Cooper_2022, title={Comparison between Modelflow® and echocardiography in the determination of cardiac output during and following pregnancy at rest and during exercise}, volume={17}, url={https://www.jhse.ua.es/article/view/2022-v17-n1-modelflow-echocardiography-cardiac-output-pregnancy-}, DOI={10.14198/jhse.2022.171.12}, abstractNote={<p>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 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.</p>}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Human Sport and Exercise}, author={Meah, Victoria L. and Backx, Karianne and Shave, Rob E. and Stöhr, Eric J. and Cooper, Stephen-Mark}, year={2022}, month={Jan.}, pages={116–135} }