Beat-to-beat blood pressure measurement using a cuffless device does not accurately reflect invasive blood pressure

Q4 Medicine
Mohammed A Moharram, Luke C Wilson, Michael JA Williams, Sean Coffey
{"title":"Beat-to-beat blood pressure measurement using a cuffless device does not accurately reflect invasive blood pressure","authors":"Mohammed A Moharram,&nbsp;Luke C Wilson,&nbsp;Michael JA Williams,&nbsp;Sean Coffey","doi":"10.1016/j.ijchy.2020.100030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The availability of an accurate continuous cuffless blood pressure (BP) monitor would provide an alternative to both invasive continuous BP and 24-h intermittent cuff-based BP monitors. We investigated the accuracy of a cuffless beat to beat (BtB) device compared to both invasive BP (iBP) and brachial cuff BP (cBP) measurements.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Patients undergoing clinically indicated coronary angiography (CA) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were recruited. After calibration to an initial cBP reading, BP was measured simultaneously using a BtB device (SOMNOtouch NIBP), brachial artery iBP, and cBP at two time points.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The study was terminated early due to a significant bias. Recordings from 14 participants (11 males, mean age 68.4 years) were analysed. Readings from BtB BP were higher than iBP. The bias between BtB BP and iBP was 34.3 mmHg (95%CI: 27.0, 41.5) and 23.6 mmHg (95%CI: 16.8, 30.4) for SBP and DBP respectively. A similar bias was seen between BtB BP and cBP, but cBP and iBP were largely in agreement.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In patients undergoing CA/PCI, significant differences were detected between BtB BP and both invasively measured and cuff BP. The non-invasive BtB BP measurement device tested is not suitable for clinical or research use.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36839,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cardiology: Hypertension","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100030"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ijchy.2020.100030","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cardiology: Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590086220300070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Background

The availability of an accurate continuous cuffless blood pressure (BP) monitor would provide an alternative to both invasive continuous BP and 24-h intermittent cuff-based BP monitors. We investigated the accuracy of a cuffless beat to beat (BtB) device compared to both invasive BP (iBP) and brachial cuff BP (cBP) measurements.

Methods

Patients undergoing clinically indicated coronary angiography (CA) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were recruited. After calibration to an initial cBP reading, BP was measured simultaneously using a BtB device (SOMNOtouch NIBP), brachial artery iBP, and cBP at two time points.

Results

The study was terminated early due to a significant bias. Recordings from 14 participants (11 males, mean age 68.4 years) were analysed. Readings from BtB BP were higher than iBP. The bias between BtB BP and iBP was 34.3 mmHg (95%CI: 27.0, 41.5) and 23.6 mmHg (95%CI: 16.8, 30.4) for SBP and DBP respectively. A similar bias was seen between BtB BP and cBP, but cBP and iBP were largely in agreement.

Conclusions

In patients undergoing CA/PCI, significant differences were detected between BtB BP and both invasively measured and cuff BP. The non-invasive BtB BP measurement device tested is not suitable for clinical or research use.

Abstract Image

使用无袖带装置测量心跳间的血压不能准确反映侵入性血压
背景:精确的连续无袖带血压(BP)监测仪的可用性将为侵入性连续血压和24小时间歇袖带血压监测仪提供一种替代方案。我们研究了无袖带搏动(BtB)装置与有创性血压(iBP)和肱袖带血压(cBP)测量的准确性。方法招募接受临床指征冠状动脉造影(CA)和/或经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的患者。校准到初始cBP读数后,使用BtB设备(SOMNOtouch NIBP)同时测量BP、肱动脉iBP和两个时间点的cBP。结果由于显著偏倚,本研究被提前终止。分析了14名参与者(11名男性,平均年龄68.4岁)的录音。BtB BP的读数高于iBP。收缩压和舒张压之间的偏差分别为34.3 mmHg (95%CI: 27.0, 41.5)和23.6 mmHg (95%CI: 16.8, 30.4)。BtB BP和cBP之间也存在类似的偏差,但cBP和iBP在很大程度上是一致的。结论行CA/PCI的患者BtB血压与有创血压、袖带血压比较差异有统计学意义。测试的非侵入性BtB血压测量装置不适合临床或研究使用。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Cardiology: Hypertension
International Journal of Cardiology: Hypertension Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信