Risk factors for poor performance in finger cuff non-invasive monitoring of arterial pressure: A prospective multicenter study

Abstract

Background

Compared to the invasive technique, non-invasive monitoring of arterial pressure favors easier and faster implementation while potentially sacrificing some reliability. This may be particularly true for the Clearsight™ system (Edwards Lifesciences), which enables continuous monitoring. We evaluated the risk factors for its poor performance.

Methods

Patients with an arterial catheter and stable mean arterial pressure (MAP) over a 5-min period were included. Six pairs of invasive and Clearsight measurements of MAP were collected and the bias between the two techniques was calculated. Poor performance of the Clearsight™ system was defined as either a failure to measure and display MAP or displaying an erroneous MAP (individual bias > 5 mmHg). Fingertip perfusion was assessed using the plethysmographic perfusion index (PI) and the capillary refill time (CRT).

Results

Among 152 ICU patients (MAP of 81 ± 14 mmHg, norepinephrine in 78 [51%]), 78 (51%) experienced a poor performance of the Clearsight™ system: failure to display MAP in 19 (13%) patients, and erroneous value displayed in 59 (44%). In multivariate analysis, PI ≤ 0.85% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.94 [95% confidence interval (95%CI):1.34;6.45]), CRT > 4 s (aOR = 5.28 [95%CI 1.39;20.05]), and the presence of hand edema (aOR = 2.06 [95%CI 1.01;4.21]) were associated with a higher likelihood of poor performance. Cardiac arrhythmia (aOR = 1.39 [95%CI 0.64;3.02]) and other tested variables were not associated with poor performance.

Conclusions

Half of the included patients exhibited poor Clearsight™ system performance. Our results caution against using finger cuff arterial pressure monitoring in patients with low PI (≤0.85%), protracted CRT (>4 s), or hand edema.

Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04269382, Dr. G. Muller, February 13, 2020. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04269382.