Abstract
BackgroundMonitoring of cardiac output and blood pressure are standard procedures in critical care medicine. Traditionally, invasive techniques like pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) and arterial catheters are widely used. Invasiveness bears many risks of deleterious complications. Therefore, a noninvasive reliable cardiac output (CO) and blood pressure monitoring system could improve the safety of cardiac monitoring. The aim of the present study was to compare a noninvasive versus a standard invasive cardiovascular monitoring system.MethodsNexfin HD is a continuous noninvasive blood pressure and cardiac output monitor system and is based on the development of the pulsatile unloading of the finger arterial walls using an inflatable finger cuff. During continuous BP measurement CO is calculated. We included 10 patients with standard invasive cardiac monitoring system (pulmonary artery catheter and arterial catheter) comparing invasively obtained data to the data collected noninvasively using the Nexfin HD.ResultsCorrelation between mean arterial pressure measured with the standard arterial monitoring system and the Nexfin HD was r2 = 0.67 with a bias of -2 mmHg and two standard deviations of ± 16 mmHg. Correlation between CO derived from PAC and the Nexfin HD was r2 = 0.83 with a bias of 0.23 l/min and two standard deviations of ± 2.1 l/min; the percentage error was 29%.ConclusionAlthough the noninvasive CO measurement appears promising, the noninvasive blood pressure assessment is clearly less reliable than the invasively measured blood pressure. Therefore, according to the present data application of the Nexfin HD monitoring system in the ICU cannot be recommended generally. Whether such a tool might be reliable in certain critically ill patients remains to be determined.
Highlights
Monitoring of cardiac output and blood pressure are standard procedures in critical care medicine
Besides the advantages of these invasive techniques for clinical decision-making, these methods both bear the risks of deleterious complications as e.g., bleeding, pneumothorax and infection; pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) is associated with the risk of inducing pulmonary artery rupture [8,9]
Baseline characteristics and clinical data A total of ten critically ill patients monitored with PAC, standard invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring and Nexfin HD were included in this study
Summary
Monitoring of cardiac output and blood pressure are standard procedures in critical care medicine. Besides the advantages of these invasive techniques for clinical decision-making, these methods both bear the risks of deleterious complications as e.g., bleeding, pneumothorax and infection; PAC is associated with the risk of inducing pulmonary artery rupture [8,9]. Our hypothesis was that the Nexfin device produces results comparable to a standard invasive blood pressure monitoring system, i.e., PAC and arterial line. The limits of agreement between the new and the reference technique of ± 30% is considered acceptable [14]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
