{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.061717352415026835, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03488372093023256, 'mean_word_length': 4.828125, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Measurements of cardiac output during constant exercises: comparison of two non-invasive techniques.

We compared cardiac output (CO) determined simultaneously by electrical impedance cardiography method (CO (ICG)) and by the CO (2) rebreathing technique (CO (2REB)) during three different steady-state exercises (target heart rate of 120, 140, and 160 min (-1)) in 8 healthy fit young men. The mean difference correlation coefficient obtained between the values of CO (ICG) and CO (2REB) was 0.85 and the mean difference (CO (ICG)-CO (2REB)) was 0.06 l/min (0.12 %). At 120 min (-1), CO (ICG) was lower than CO (2REB) but the tendency was reversed at 140 and 160 min (-1) where CO (ICG) was higher than CO (2REB). This evolution may be explained by the difficulty of using CO (2) rebreathing technique at the highest steady-state exercises and by the progressive acidemia due to exercise. The present results suggest that electrical impedance cardiography method provides acceptable evaluation of CO and may favourably replace the CO (2) rebreathing technique during mild (or moderate) to high steady-state exercises.