Bland–Altman analysis as an alternative approach for statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring hemodynamics during acute myocardial infarction
Abstract
Patients and methods. A total of 34 patients (20 (58.8%) men and 14 (41.2%) women) were investigated according to the study protocol at Kaunas University of Medicine Hospital. A prospective controlled study was designed to compare two different methods – intermittent thermodilution and impedance cardiography – of cardiac output measurement simultaneously in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Statistical analysis was performed with Bland–Altman and linear regression.
Results. A total of 34 paired measurements were carried out in 34 patients at the initiation of hemodynamic monitoring and 30 paired measurements in 32 patients after subsequent improvement or stabilization of clinical status. Correlation coefficient ranged from 0.37 to 0.98.
Conclusions. Bland–Altman analysis is an alternative method for assessing the agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. According to our data, noninvasive technique – impedance cardiography – is a reliable method for hemodynamic monitoring in noncomplicated cases of acute myocardial infarction.
Share and Cite
Braždžionytė, J.; Macas, A. Bland–Altman analysis as an alternative approach for statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring hemodynamics during acute myocardial infarction. Medicina 2007, 43, 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina43030025
Braždžionytė J, Macas A. Bland–Altman analysis as an alternative approach for statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring hemodynamics during acute myocardial infarction. Medicina. 2007; 43(3):208. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina43030025
Chicago/Turabian StyleBraždžionytė, Julija, and Andrius Macas. 2007. "Bland–Altman analysis as an alternative approach for statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring hemodynamics during acute myocardial infarction" Medicina 43, no. 3: 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina43030025