Finger cuff versus invasive and noninvasive arterial pressure measurement in pregnant patients with obesity.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant patients with obesity may have compromised noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurement. We assessed the accuracy and trending ability of the ClearSight™ finger cuff (FC) with invasive arterial monitoring (INV) and arm NIBP, in obese patients having cesarean delivery. METHODS: Participants were aged ≥18 years, ≥34 weeks gestation, and body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg m-2. FC, INV, and NIBP measurements were obtained across 5-min intervals. The primary outcome was agreement of FC measurements with those of the reference standard INV, using modified Bland-Altman plots. Secondary outcomes included comparisons between FC and NIBP and NIBP versus INV, with four-quadrant plots performed to report discordance rates and evaluate trending ability. RESULTS: Twenty-three participants had a median (IQR) BMI of 45 kg m-2 (44-48). When comparing FC and INV the mean bias (SD, 95% limits of agreement) for systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 16 mmHg (17, -17.3 to 49.3 mmHg), for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) -0.2 mmHg (10.5, -20.7 to 20.3), and for mean arterial pressure (MAP) 5.2 mmHg (11.1, -16.6 to 27.0 mmHg). Discordance occurred in 54 (26%) pairs for SBP, 41 (23%) for DBP, and 41 (21.7%) for MAP. Error grid analysis showed 92.1% of SBP readings in Zone A (no-risk zone). When comparing NIBP and INV, the mean bias (95% limits of agreement) for SBP was 13.0 mmHg (16.7, -19.7 to 29.3), for DBP 5.9 mmHg (11.9, -17.4 to 42.0), and for MAP 8.2 mmHg (11.9, -15.2 to 31.6). Discordance occurred in SBP (84 of 209, 40.2%), DBP (74 of 187, 39.6%), and MAP (63 of 191, 33.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The FC and NIBP techniques were not adequately in agreement with INV. Trending capability was better for FC than NIBP. Clinically important differences may occur in the setting of the perfusion-dependent fetus.

Comparison of oscillometric, non-invasive and invasive arterial pressure monitoring in patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery - a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Oscillometric, non-invasive blood pressure measurement (NIBP) is the first choice of blood pressure monitoring in the majority of low and moderate risk surgeries. In patients with morbid obesity, however, it is subject to several limitations. The aim was to compare arterial pressure monitoring by NIBP and a non-invasive finger-cuff technology (Nexfin®) with the gold-standard invasive arterial pressure (IAP). METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a prospective observational, single centre cohort study, systolic (SAP), diastolic (DAP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were measured at 16 defined perioperative time points including posture changes, fluid bolus administration and pneumoperitoneum (PP) in patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Absolute arterial pressures by NIBP, Nexfin® and IAP were compared using correlation and Bland Altman analyses. Interchangeability was defined by a mean difference ≤ 5 mmHg (SD ≤8 mmHg). Percentage error (PE) was calculated as an additional statistical estimate. For hemodynamic trending, concordance rates were analysed according to the Critchley criterion. RESULTS: Sixty patients (mean body mass index of 49.2 kg/m2) were enrolled and data from 56 finally analysed. Pooled blood pressure values of all time points showed a significant positive correlation for both NIPB and Nexfin® versus IAP. Pooled PE for NIBP versus IAP was 37% (SAP), 35% (DAP) and 30% (MAP), for Nexfin versus IAP 23% (SAP), 26% (DAP) and 22% (MAP). Correlation of MAP was best and PE lowest before induction of anesthesia for NIBP versus IAP (r = 0.72; PE 24%) and after intraoperative fluid bolus administration for Nexfin® versus IAP (r = 0.88; PE: 17.2%). Concordance of MAP trending was 90% (SAP 85%, DAP 89%) for NIBP and 91% (SAP 90%, DAP 86%) for Nexfin®. MAP trending was best during intraoperative ATP positioning for NIBP (97%) and at induction of anesthesia for Nexfin® (97%). CONCLUSION: As compared with IAP, interchangeability of absolute pressure values could neither be shown for NIBP nor Nexfin®, however, NIBP showed poorer overall correlation and precision. Overall trending ability was generally high with Nexfin® surpassing NIBP. Nexfin® may likely render individualized decision-making in the management of different hemodynamic stresses during laparoscopic bariatric surgery, particularly where NIBP cannot be reliably established. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The non-interventional, observational study was registered retrospectively at ( NCT03184285 ) on June 12, 2017.

Non-invasive measurement of pulse pressure variation using a finger-cuff method (CNAP system): a validation study in patients having neurosurgery.

The finger-cuff system CNAP (CNSystems Medizintechnik, Graz, Austria) allows non-invasive automated measurement of pulse pressure variation (PPVCNAP). We sought to validate the PPVCNAP-algorithm and investigate the agreement between PPVCNAP and arterial catheter-derived manually calculated pulse pressure variation (PPVINV). This was a prospective method comparison study in patients having neurosurgery. PPVINV was the reference method. We applied the PPVCNAP-algorithm to arterial catheter-derived blood pressure waveforms (PPVINV-CNAP) and to CNAP finger-cuff-derived blood pressure waveforms (PPVCNAP). To validate the PPVCNAP-algorithm, we compared PPVINV-CNAP to PPVINV. To investigate the clinical performance of PPVCNAP, we compared PPVCNAP to PPVINV. We used Bland-Altman analysis (absolute agreement), Deming regression, concordance, and Cohen's kappa (predictive agreement for three pulse pressure variation categories). We analyzed 360 measurements from 36 patients. The mean of the differences between PPVINV-CNAP and PPVINV was -0.1% (95% limits of agreement (95%-LoA) -2.5 to 2.3%). Deming regression showed a slope of 0.99 (95% confidence interval (95%-CI) 0.91 to 1.06) and intercept of -0.02 (95%-CI -0.52 to 0.47). The predictive agreement between PPVINV-CNAP and PPVINV was 92% and Cohen's kappa was 0.79. The mean of the differences between PPVCNAP and PPVINV was -1.0% (95%-LoA-6.3 to 4.3%). Deming regression showed a slope of 0.85 (95%-CI 0.78 to 0.91) and intercept of 0.10 (95%-CI -0.34 to 0.55). The predictive agreement between PPVCNAP and PPVINV was 82% and Cohen's kappa was 0.48. The PPVCNAP-algorithm reliably calculates pulse pressure variation compared to manual offline pulse pressure variation calculation when applied on the same arterial blood pressure waveform. The absolute and predictive agreement between PPVCNAP and PPVINV are moderate.

ClearSight™ finger cuff versus invasive arterial pressure measurement in patients with body mass index above 45 kg/m2.

BACKGROUND: Measuring blood pressure in patients with obesity is challenging. The ClearSight™ finger cuff (FC) uses the vascular unloading technique to provide continuous non-invasive blood pressure measurements. We aimed to test the agreement of the FC with invasive radial arterial monitoring (INV) in patients with obesity. METHODS: Participants had a body mass index (BMI) ≥45 kg/m2 and underwent laparoscopic bariatric surgery. FC and INV measurements were obtained simultaneously every 5 min on each patient, following induction of anesthesia. Agreement over time was assessed using modified Bland-Altman plots and error grid analysis permitted clinical interpretation of the results. Four-quadrant plots allowed assessment of concordance in blood pressure changes. RESULTS: The 30 participants had a median (IQR) BMI of 50.2 kg/m2 (IQR 48.3-55.3). The observed bias (SD, 95% limits of agreement) for systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 14.3 mmHg (14.1, -13.4 - 42.0), 5.2 mmHg (10.9, -16.0 - 26.5) for mean arterial pressure (MAP) and 2.6 mmHg (10.8, -18.6 - 23.8) for diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Error grid analysis showed that the proportion of readings in risk zones A-E were 90.8, 6.5, 2.7, 0 and 0% for SBP and 91.4, 4.3, 4.3, 0 and 0% for MAP, respectively. Discordance occurred in ≤8% of pairs for consecutive change in SBP, MAP and DBP. CONCLUSIONS: The vascular unloading technique was not adequately in agreement with radial arterial monitoring. Evaluation in a larger sample is required before recommending this technique for intraoperative monitoring of patients with BMI ≥45 kg/m2.

Cardiovascular dynamics during peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal achalasia: a prospective observational study using non-invasive finger cuff-derived pulse wave analysis.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery to treat esophageal achalasia. During POEM, cardiovascular dynamics can be impaired by capnoperitoneum, capnomediastinum, and systemic carbon dioxide accumulation. We systematically investigated changes in cardiovascular dynamics during POEM. We included 31 patients having POEM in this single-center prospective observational study. Before and every 5 min during POEM we measured mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), cardiac index (CI), stroke volume index (SVI), and systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) using non-invasive finger cuff-derived pulse wave analysis. During POEM, the median MAP was higher than the median baseline MAP of 77 (67;86) mmHg. HR (median at baseline: 67 (60;72) bpm), CI (2.8 (2.5;3.2) L/min/m2), SVI (42 (34;51) mL/m2), and SVRI (1994 (1652; 2559) dyn × s × cm-5 × m-2) remained stable during POEM. Mixed model-derived 95% confidence limits of hemodynamic variables during POEM were 72 to 106 mmHg for MAP, 65 to 79 bpm for HR, 2.7 to 3.3 L/min/m2 for CI, 37 and 46 mL/m2 for SVI, and 1856 and 2954 dyn × s × cm-5 × m-2 for SVRI. POEM is a safe procedure with regard to cardiovascular dynamics as it does not markedly impair MAP, HR, CI, SVI, or SVRI.

Perioperative non-invasive versus semi-invasive cardiac index monitoring in patients with bariatric surgery - a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: In morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery, the combination of obesity-related comorbidities, pneumoperitoneum and extreme posture changes constitutes a high risk of perioperative hemodynamic complications. Thus, an advanced hemodynamic monitoring including continuous cardiac index (CI) assessment is desirable. While invasive catheterization may bear technical difficulties, transesophageal echocardiography is contraindicated due to the surgical procedure. Evidence on the clinical reliability of alternative semi- or non-invasive cardiac monitoring devices is limited. The aim was to compare the non-invasive vascular unloading to a semi-invasive pulse contour analysis reference technique for continuous CI measurements in bariatric surgical patients. METHODS: This prospective observational study included adult patients scheduled for elective, laparoscopic bariatric surgery after obtained institutional ethics approval and written informed consent. CI measurements were performed using the vascular unloading technique (Nexfin®) and semi-invasive reference method (FloTrac™). At 10 defined measurement time points, the influence of clinically indicated body posture changes, passive leg raising, fluid bolus administration and pneumoperitoneum was evaluated pre- and intraoperatively. Correlation, Bland-Altman and concordance analyses were performed. RESULTS: Sixty patients (mean BMI 49.2 kg/m2) were enrolled into the study and data from 54 patients could be entered in the final analysis. Baseline CI was 3.2 ± 0.9 and 3.3 ± 0.8 l/min/m2, respectively. Pooled absolute CI values showed a positive correlation (rs = 0.76, P < 0.001) and mean bias of of - 0.16 l/min/m2 (limits of agreement: - 1.48 to 1.15 l/min/m2) between the two methods. Pooled percentage error was 56.51%, missing the criteria of interchangeability (< 30%). Preoperatively, bias ranged from - 0.33 to 0.08 l/min/m2 with wide limits of agreement. Correlation of CI was best (rs = 0.82, P < 0.001) and percentage error lowest (46.34%) during anesthesia and after fluid bolus administration. Intraoperatively, bias ranged from - 0.34 to - 0.03 l/min/m2 with wide limits of agreement. CI measurements correlated best during pneumoperitoneum and after fluid bolus administration (rs = 0.77, P < 0.001; percentage error 35.95%). Trending ability for all 10 measurement points showed a concordance rate of 85.12%, not reaching the predefined Critchley criterion (> 92%). CONCLUSION: Non-invasive as compared to semi-invasive CI measurements did not reach criteria of interchangeability for monitoring absolute and trending values of CI in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered retrospectively on June 12, 2017 with the registration number NCT03184272 .

Continuous noninvasive cardiac output determination using the CNAP system: evaluation of a cardiac output algorithm for the analysis of volume clamp method-derived pulse contour.

The CNAP system (CNSystems Medizintechnik AG, Graz, Austria) provides noninvasive continuous arterial pressure measurements by using the volume clamp method. Recently, an algorithm for the determination of cardiac output by pulse contour analysis of the arterial waveform recorded with the CNAP system became available. We evaluated the agreement of the continuous noninvasive cardiac output (CNCO) measurements by CNAP in comparison with cardiac output measurements invasively obtained using transpulmonary thermodilution (TDCO). In this proof-of-concept analysis we studied 38 intensive care unit patients from a previously set up database containing CNAP-derived arterial pressure data and TDCO values obtained with the PiCCO system (Pulsion Medical Systems SE, Feldkirchen, Germany). We applied the new CNCO algorithm retrospectively to the arterial pressure waveforms recorded with CNAP and compared CNCO with the corresponding TDCO values (criterion standard). Analyses were performed separately for (1) CNCO calibrated to the first TDCO (CNCO-cal) and (2) CNCO autocalibrated to biometric patient data (CNCO-auto). We did not perform an analysis of trending capabilities because the patients were hemodynamically stable. The median age and APACHE II score of the 22 male and 16 female patients was 63 years and 18 points, respectively. 18 % were mechanically ventilated and in 29 % vasopressors were administered. Mean ± standard deviation for CNCO-cal, CNCO-auto, and TDCO was 8.1 ± 2.7, 6.4 ± 1.9, and 7.8 ± 2.4 L/min, respectively. For CNCO-cal versus TDCO, Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean difference of +0.2 L/min (standard deviation 1.0 L/min; 95 % limits of agreement -1.7 to +2.2 L/min, percentage error 25 %). For CNCO-auto versus TDCO, the mean difference was -1.4 L/min (standard deviation 1.8 L/min; 95 % limits of agreement -4.9 to +2.1 L/min, percentage error 45 %). This pilot analysis shows that CNCO determination is feasible in critically ill patients. A percentage error of 25 % indicates acceptable agreement between CNCO-cal and TDCO. The mean difference, the standard deviation, and the percentage error between CNCO-auto and TDCO were higher than between CNCO-cal and TDCO. A hyperdynamic cardiocirculatory state in a substantial number of patients and the hemodynamic stability making trending analysis impossible are main limitations of our study.

Continuous noninvasive arterial pressure measurement using the volume clamp method: an evaluation of the CNAP device in intensive care unit patients.

The CNAP system allows continuous noninvasive arterial pressure measurement based on the volume clamp method using a finger cuff. We aimed to evaluate the agreement between arterial pressure measurements noninvasively obtained using the CNAP device and arterial catheter-derived arterial pressure measurements in intensive care unit patients. In 55 intensive care unit patients, we simultaneously recorded arterial pressure values obtained by an arterial catheter placed in the abdominal aorta through the femoral artery (criterion standard) and arterial pressure values determined noninvasively using CNAP. We performed Bland-Altman analysis and calculated the percentage error. The mean difference (±standard deviation, 95% limits of agreement, percentage error) between noninvasive (CNAP) and invasively assessed arterial pressure was for mean arterial pressure +1 mmHg (±9 mmHg, -16 to +19 mmHg, 22%), for systolic arterial pressure -10 mmHg (±16 mmHg, -42 to +21 mmHg, 27%), and for diastolic arterial pressure +7 mmHg (±9 mmHg, -10 to +24 mmHg, 28%). Our results indicate a reasonable accuracy and precision for the determination of mean and diastolic arterial pressure by noninvasive continuous arterial pressure measurements using the volume clamp method compared with the criterion standard (invasive arterial catheter). Systolic arterial pressure is determined less accurately and precisely.

Techniques for Non-Invasive Monitoring of Arterial Blood Pressure.

Since both, hypotension and hypertension, can potentially impair the function of vital organs such as heart, brain, or kidneys, monitoring of arterial blood pressure (BP) is a mainstay of hemodynamic monitoring in acutely or critically ill patients. Arterial BP can either be obtained invasively via an arterial catheter or non-invasively. Non-invasive BP measurement provides either intermittent or continuous readings. Most commonly, an occluding upper arm cuff is used for intermittent non-invasive monitoring. BP values are then obtained either manually (by auscultation of Korotkoff sounds or palpation) or automatically (e.g., by oscillometry). For continuous non-invasive BP monitoring, the volume clamp method or arterial applanation tonometry can be used. Both techniques enable the arterial waveform and BP values to be obtained continuously. This article describes the different techniques for non-invasive BP measurement, their advantages and limitations, and their clinical applicability.

Continuous Non-Invasive Arterial Pressure Assessment during Surgery to Improve Outcome.

Blood pressure (BP) is one of the most important variables evaluated during almost every medical examination. Most national anesthesiology societies recommend BP monitoring at least once every 5 min in anesthetized subjects undergoing surgical procedures. In most cases, BP is monitored non-invasively using oscillometric cuffs. Although the risk of arterial cannulation is not very high, the invasive BP monitoring is usually indicated only in the case of high-risk patients or in complex surgical procedures. However, recent evidence points out that when using intermittent BP monitoring short periods of hypotension may be overlooked. In addition, large datasets have demonstrated that even short periods of low BP (or their cumulative duration) may have a detrimental impact on the development of postoperative outcome including increased risk of acute kidney or myocardial injury development. Recently marketed continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitoring tools may help us to recognize the BP fluctuation without the associated burden of arterial cannulation filling the gap between intermittent non-invasive cuff and continuous invasive arterial pressure. Among others, several novel devices based either on volume clamp/vascular unloading method or on applanation tonometry are nowadays available. Moreover, several near-future smart technologies may lead to better hypotension recognition or even prediction potentially improving our ability to maintain BP stability throughout the anesthesia or surgical procedure. In this review, novel or emerging technologies of non-invasive continuous blood pressure assessment and their potential to improve postoperative outcome are discussed.

Evaluation of a novel automated non-invasive pulse pressure variation algorithm.

In mechanically ventilated patients, Pulse Pressure Variation (PPV) has been shown to be a useful parameter to guide fluid management. We evaluated a real-time automated PPV-algorithm by comparing it to manually calculated PPV-values. In 10 critically ill patients, blood pressure was measured invasively (IBP) and non-invasively (CNAP(®) Monitor, CNSystems Medizintechnik, Austria). PPV was determined manually and compared to automated PPV values: PPVmanIBP vs. PPVautoIBP was -0.19 ± 1.65% (mean bias ± standard deviation), PPVmanCNAP vs. PPVautoCNAP was -1.02 ± 2.03% and PPVautoCNAP vs. PPVmanIBP was -2.10 ± 3.14%, suggesting that the automated CNAP(®) PPV-algorithm works well on both blood pressure waveforms but needs further clinical evaluation.