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.

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 monitoring of arterial pressure using the vascular unloading technique in comparison to the invasive gold standard in elderly comorbid patients: A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Elderly patients aged ≥65 years represent a growing population in the perioperative field, particularly orthopedic and vascular surgery. The higher degree of age-related or comorbid-dependent vascular alterations renders these patients at risk for hemodynamic complications and likely denote a possible limitation for modern, non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring devices. The aim was to compare vascular unloading technique-derived to invasive measurements of systolic (SAP), diastolic (DAP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) in elderly perioperative patients. METHODS: This prospective observational study included patients aged ≥65 years scheduled for orthopedic and patients ≥50 years with peripheral artery disease Fontaine stage ≥ II scheduled for vascular surgery, respectively. Invasive radial artery and non-invasive finger-cuff (Nexfin system) arterial pressures were recorded before and after induction of general anesthesia and during surgery. Correlation, Bland-Altman, and concordance analyses were performed. Measurements of arterial pressure were also compared during intraoperative hypotension (MAP <70 mm Hg) and hypertension (MAP >105 mm Hg). RESULTS: Sixty patients with orthopedic (N = 25, mean (SD) age 77 (5) years) and vascular surgery (N = 35, age 69 [10] years) were enrolled. Seven hundred data pairs of all patients were analysed and pooled bias and percentage error were: SAP: 14.43 mm Hg, 43.79%; DAP: -2.40 mm Hg, 53.78% and MAP: 1.73 mm Hg, 45.05%. Concordance rates were 84.01% for SAP, 77.87% for DAP, and 86.47% for MAP. Predefined criteria for interchangeability of absolute and trending values could neither be reached in the overall nor in the subgroup analyses orthopedic vs vascular surgery. During hypertension, percentage error was found to be lowest for all pressure values, still not reaching predefined criteria. CONCLUSION: Arterial pressure monitoring with the vascular unloading technique did not reach criteria of interchangeability for absolute and trending values. Nevertheless, the putatively beneficial use of noninvasive arterial pressure measurements should be further evaluated in the elderly perioperative patient.