Accuracy of Noninvasive Blood Pressure Monitoring in Critically Ill Adults.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of Intensive Care Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-12 DOI:10.1177/08850666231225173
Erin N Haber, Rajiv Sonti, Suzanne M Simkovich, C William Pike, Christian L Boxley, Allan Fong, William S Weintraub, Nathan K Cobb
{"title":"Accuracy of Noninvasive Blood Pressure Monitoring in Critically Ill Adults.","authors":"Erin N Haber, Rajiv Sonti, Suzanne M Simkovich, C William Pike, Christian L Boxley, Allan Fong, William S Weintraub, Nathan K Cobb","doi":"10.1177/08850666231225173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Blood pressure (BP) is routinely invasively monitored by an arterial catheter in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the available data comparing the accuracy of noninvasive methods to arterial catheters for measuring BP in the ICU are limited by small numbers and diverse methodologies. <b>Purpose:</b> To determine agreement between invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring (IABP) and noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) in critically ill patients. <b>Methods:</b> This was a single center, observational study of critical ill adults in a tertiary care facility evaluating agreement (≤10% difference) between simultaneously measured IABP and NIBP. We measured clinical features at time of BP measurement inclusive of patient demographics, laboratory data, severity of illness, specific interventions (mechanical ventilation and dialysis), and vasopressor dose to identify particular clinical scenarios in which measurement agreement is more or less likely. <b>Results:</b> Of the 1852 critically ill adults with simultaneous IABP and NIBP readings, there was a median difference of 6 mm Hg in mean arterial pressure (MAP), interquartile range (1-12), <i>P</i> < .01. A logistic regression analysis identified 5 independent predictors of measurement discrepancy: increasing doses of norepinephrine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.10 [95% confidence interval, CI 1.08-1.12] <i>P</i> = .03 for every change in 5 µg/min), lower MAP value (aOR 0.98 [0.98-0.99] <i>P</i> < .01 for every change in 1 mm Hg), higher body mass index (aOR 1.04 [1.01-1.09] <i>P</i> = .01 for an increase in 1), increased patient age (aOR 1.31 [1.30-1.37] <i>P</i> < .01 for every 10 years), and radial arterial line location (aOR 1.74 [1.16-2.47] <i>P</i> = .04). <b>Conclusions:</b> There was broad agreement between IABP and NIBP in critically ill patients over a range of BPs and severity of illness. Several variables are associated with measurement discrepancy; however, their predictive capacity is modest. This may guide future study into which patients may specifically benefit from an arterial catheter.</p>","PeriodicalId":16307,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666231225173","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Blood pressure (BP) is routinely invasively monitored by an arterial catheter in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the available data comparing the accuracy of noninvasive methods to arterial catheters for measuring BP in the ICU are limited by small numbers and diverse methodologies. Purpose: To determine agreement between invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring (IABP) and noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) in critically ill patients. Methods: This was a single center, observational study of critical ill adults in a tertiary care facility evaluating agreement (≤10% difference) between simultaneously measured IABP and NIBP. We measured clinical features at time of BP measurement inclusive of patient demographics, laboratory data, severity of illness, specific interventions (mechanical ventilation and dialysis), and vasopressor dose to identify particular clinical scenarios in which measurement agreement is more or less likely. Results: Of the 1852 critically ill adults with simultaneous IABP and NIBP readings, there was a median difference of 6 mm Hg in mean arterial pressure (MAP), interquartile range (1-12), P < .01. A logistic regression analysis identified 5 independent predictors of measurement discrepancy: increasing doses of norepinephrine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.10 [95% confidence interval, CI 1.08-1.12] P = .03 for every change in 5 µg/min), lower MAP value (aOR 0.98 [0.98-0.99] P < .01 for every change in 1 mm Hg), higher body mass index (aOR 1.04 [1.01-1.09] P = .01 for an increase in 1), increased patient age (aOR 1.31 [1.30-1.37] P < .01 for every 10 years), and radial arterial line location (aOR 1.74 [1.16-2.47] P = .04). Conclusions: There was broad agreement between IABP and NIBP in critically ill patients over a range of BPs and severity of illness. Several variables are associated with measurement discrepancy; however, their predictive capacity is modest. This may guide future study into which patients may specifically benefit from an arterial catheter.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重症成人无创血压监测的准确性。
背景:在重症监护病房(ICU)中,血压(BP)通常由动脉导管进行有创监测。目的:确定重症患者有创动脉血压监测(IABP)和无创血压监测(NIBP)之间的一致性:这是一项单中心观察性研究,对象是一家三级医疗机构中的成人重症患者,目的是评估同时测量的 IABP 和 NIBP 之间的一致性(差值小于 10%)。我们测量了测量血压时的临床特征,包括患者的人口统计学特征、实验室数据、病情严重程度、特定干预措施(机械通气和透析)以及血管抑制剂剂量,以确定在哪些特定临床情况下测量结果更有可能一致:在同时读取 IABP 和 NIBP 读数的 1852 名成人重症患者中,平均动脉压(MAP)的中位差值为 6 mm Hg,四分位数范围(1-12),每变化 5 µg/min,P P = .03),MAP 值降低(增加 1 的 aOR 为 0.98 [0.98-0.99] P P = .01),患者年龄增加(aOR 为 1.31 [1.30-1.37] P P = .04):结论:IABP 和 NIBP 对重症患者的血压和病情严重程度的测量结果基本一致。有几个变量与测量差异有关,但其预测能力不强。这可以指导今后的研究,了解哪些患者可能特别受益于动脉导管。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
3.20%
发文量
107
期刊介绍: Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JIC) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal offering medical and surgical clinicians in adult and pediatric intensive care state-of-the-art, broad-based analytic reviews and updates, original articles, reports of large clinical series, techniques and procedures, topic-specific electronic resources, book reviews, and editorials on all aspects of intensive/critical/coronary care.
期刊最新文献
Development of an Extended Cardiovascular SOFA Score Component Reflecting Cardiac Dysfunction with Improved Survival Prediction in Sepsis: An Exploratory Analysis in the Sepsis and Elevated Troponin (SET) Study. Myoclonus After Cardiac Arrest did not Correlate with Cortical Response on Somatosensory Evoked Potentials. Predicting Parental Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms Following their Child's Stay in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Prior to Discharge. Intubation and Mechanical Ventilation in Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Scoping Review. Effect of Extended Prone Positioning in Intubated COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, a Revision Letter.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1