A comparison between invasive and noninvasive measurement of the Hypotension Prediction Index: A post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study.

Background: Clinical trials and validation studies demonstrate promising hypotension prediction capability by the Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI). Most studies that evaluate HPI derive it from invasive blood pressure readings, but a direct comparison with the noninvasive alternative remains undetermined. Such a comparison could provide valuable insights for clinicians in deciding between invasive and noninvasive monitoring strategies.

Objectives: Evaluating predictive differences between HPI when obtained through noninvasive versus invasive blood pressure monitoring.

Design: Post hoc analysis of a prospective observational study conducted between 2018 and 2020.

Setting: Single-centre study conducted in an academic hospital in the Netherlands.

Patients: Adult noncardiac surgery patients scheduled for over 2 h long elective procedures. After obtaining informed consent, 91 out of the 105 patients had sufficient data for analysis.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the difference in area under the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC) obtained for HPI predictions between the two datasets. Additionally, difference in time-to-event estimations were calculated.

Results: AUC (95% confidence interval (CI)) results revealed a nonsignificant difference between invasive and noninvasive HPI, with areas of 94.2% (90.5 to 96.8) and 95.3% (90.4 to 98.2), respectively with an estimated difference of 1.1 (-3.9 to 6.1)%; P = 0.673. However, noninvasive HPI demonstrated significantly longer time-to-event estimations for higher HPI values.

Conclusion: Noninvasive HPI is reliably accessible to clinicians during noncardiac surgery, showing comparable accuracy in HPI probabilities and the potential for additional response time.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03795831) on 10 January 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03795831.