Abstract
Abstract
Background
Since blood pressure tends to be unstable during induction of anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery, an artery catheter is often inserted before induction to continuously monitor arterial pressure during induction of anesthesia. ClearSight System™ enables noninvasive continuous measurement of beat-to-beat arterial pressure via a single finger cuff without pain using photoplethysmographic technology. If ClearSight System™ can replace intra-arterial pressure measurement, blood pressure could be easily and noninvasively assessed. However, the validity of ClearSight System™ during induction of anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery has not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare blood pressure measured by ClearSight System™ with intra-arterial pressure during induction of anesthesia for cardiovascular surgery.
Methods
This study was registered retrospectively. Data during induction of anesthesia for elective cardiovascular surgery were obtained for patients in whom noninvasive arterial pressure was measured by ClearSight System™ (APcs) and invasive radial arterial pressure (APrad) was measured simultaneously. According to the widely used criteria formulated by international standards from the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, the acceptable bias and precision for arterial pressure measurements were fixed at < 5 mmHg and 8 mmHg, respectively.
Results
Data for 18 patients were analyzed. For 3068 analyzed paired measurements, values of APcs vs APrad bias (precision) were 13.2 (17.5), − 9.1 (7.3) and − 3.9 (7.8) mmHg for systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures, respectively.
Conclusions
Mean arterial pressure measured by ClearSight System™ could be considered as an alternative for mean radial arterial pressure during induction of anesthesia for elective cardiovascular surgery.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Reference17 articles.
1. Shiloh AL, Savel RH, Paulin LM, Eisen LA. Ultrasound-guided catheterization of the radial artery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Chest. 2011;139:524–9.
2. Akkermans J, Diepeveen M, Ganzevoort W, van Montfans GA, Westerhof BE, Wolf H. Continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitoring, a validation study of Nexfin in a pregnant population. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2009;28:230–42.
3. Garnier RP, van der Spoel AG, Sibarani-Ponsen R, Markhorst DG, Boer C. Level of agreement between Nexfin non-invasive arterial pressure with invasive arterial pressure measurements in children. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:609–15.
4. de Wilde RB, de Wit F, Geerts BF, van Vliet AL, Aarts LP, Vuyk J, Jansen JR. Non-invasive continuous arterial pressure and pulse pressure variation measured with Nexfin® in patients following major upper abdominal surgery: a comparative study. Anaethesia. 2016;71:788–97.
5. Ameloot K, Van De Vijver K, Van Regenmortel N, De Laet I, Schoonheydt K, Dits H, Broch O, Bein B, Malbrain ML. Validation study of Nexfin® continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitoring in critically ill adult patients. Minerva Anestesiol. 2014;80:1294–301.
Cited by
19 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献