Pulse contour analysis of the noninvasive finger arterial pressure waveform provides a convenient means to estimate cardiac output (Q̇). The method has been compared with standard methods under a range of conditions but never before during spaceflight. We compared pulse contour analysis with the Modelflow algorithm to estimates of Q̇ obtained by rebreathing during preflight baseline testing and during the final month of long-duration spaceflight in nine healthy male astronauts. By Modelflow analysis, stroke volume was greater in supine baseline than seated baseline or inflight. Heart rate was reduced in supine baseline so that there were no differences in Q̇ by Modelflow estimate between the supine (7.02 ± 1.31 l/min, means ± SD), seated (6.60 ± 1.95 l/min), or inflight (5.91 ± 1.15 l/min) conditions. In contrast, rebreathing estimates of Q̇ increased from seated baseline (4.76 ± 0.67 l/min) to inflight (7.00 ± 1.39 l/min, significant interaction effect of method and spaceflight, P < 0.001). Pulse contour analysis utilizes a three-element Windkessel model that incorporates parameters dependent on aortic pressure-area relationships that are assumed to represent the entire circulation. We propose that a large increase in vascular compliance in the splanchnic circulation invalidates the model under conditions of spaceflight. Future spaceflight research measuring cardiac function needs to consider this important limitation for assessing absolute values of Q̇ and stroke volume. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Noninvasive assessment of cardiac function during human spaceflight is an important tool to monitor astronaut health. This study demonstrated that pulse contour analysis of finger arterial blood pressure to estimate cardiac output failed to track the 46% increase measured by a rebreathing method. These results strongly suggest that alternative methods not dependent on pulse contour analysis are required to track cardiac function in spaceflight.
Stroke volume and cardiac output non-invasive monitoring based on brachial oscillometry-derived pulse contour analysis: Explanatory variables and reference intervals throughout life (3–88 years)
