BACKGROUND: Hemodynamic monitoring plays a pivotal role in the treatment of patients in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). The innovative radial artery applanation tonometry technology allows for continuous noninvasive arterial blood pressure (AP) measurement. By closing the gap between continuous invasive AP monitoring (arterial catheter) and intermittent noninvasive AP monitoring (oscillometry) this technology might improve CICU patient monitoring. We therefore aimed to evaluate the measurement performance of radial artery applanation tonometry in comparison with a radial arterial catheter in CICU patients. METHODS: In this prospective method comparison study, we simultaneously recorded AP noninvasively with radial artery applanation tonometry (T-line 200 pro device; Tensys Medical Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) and invasively with an arterial catheter (criterion standard) in 30 patients treated in the CICU of a German university hospital. We statistically analyzed 7,304 averaged 10-beat epochs of measurements of mean AP, systolic AP, and diastolic AP by using Bland-Altman analysis for repeated measurements. RESULTS: Our study revealed a mean difference ± standard deviation (95% limits of agreement; percentage error) between radial artery applanation tonometry and the criterion standard method (radial arterial catheter) of +2 ± 6 mmHg (-10 to +14 mmHg; 17%) for mean AP, -6 ± 11 mmHg (-28 to +15 mmHg; 20%) for systolic AP, and +4 ± 7 mmHg (-9 to +17 mmHg; 23%) for diastolic AP. CONCLUSIONS: In CICU patients, continuous noninvasive measurement of AP using radial artery applanation tonometry is feasible. The technology showed reasonable accuracy and precision in comparison with radial arterial catheter-derived AP values.
BACKGROUND: Hemodynamic monitoring plays a pivotal role in the treatment of patients in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). The innovative radial artery applanation tonometry technology allows for continuous noninvasive arterial blood pressure (AP) measurement. By closing the gap between continuous invasive AP monitoring (arterial catheter) and intermittent noninvasive AP monitoring (oscillometry) this technology might improve CICU patient monitoring. We therefore aimed to evaluate the measurement performance of radial artery applanation tonometry in comparison with a radial arterial catheter in CICU patients. METHODS: In this prospective method comparison study, we simultaneously recorded AP noninvasively with radial artery applanation tonometry (T-line 200 pro device; Tensys Medical Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) and invasively with an arterial catheter (criterion standard) in 30 patients treated in the CICU of a German university hospital. We statistically analyzed 7,304 averaged 10-beat epochs of measurements of mean AP, systolic AP, and diastolic AP by using Bland-Altman analysis for repeated measurements. RESULTS: Our study revealed a mean difference ± standard deviation (95% limits of agreement; percentage error) between radial artery applanation tonometry and the criterion standard method (radial arterial catheter) of +2 ± 6 mmHg (-10 to +14 mmHg; 17%) for mean AP, -6 ± 11 mmHg (-28 to +15 mmHg; 20%) for systolic AP, and +4 ± 7 mmHg (-9 to +17 mmHg; 23%) for diastolic AP. CONCLUSIONS: In CICU patients, continuous noninvasive measurement of AP using radial artery applanation tonometry is feasible. The technology showed reasonable accuracy and precision in comparison with radial arterial catheter-derived AP values.
Authors: Bernd Saugel; Florian Fassio; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Agnes S Meidert; Roland M Schmid; Wolfgang Huber Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Judith S Hochman; Lynn A Sleeper; John G Webb; Vladimir Dzavik; Christopher E Buller; Philip Aylward; Jacques Col; Harvey D White Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-06-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A S Meidert; W Huber; J N Müller; M Schöfthaler; A Hapfelmeier; N Langwieser; J Y Wagner; F Eyer; R M Schmid; B Saugel Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Anna Selle; Hans R Figulla; Markus Ferrari; Wilma Rademacher; Bjoern Goebel; Ali Hamadanchi; Marcus Franz; Andrea Schlueter; Thomas Lehmann; Alexander Lauten Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Bernd Saugel; Agnes S Meidert; Nicolas Langwieser; Julia Y Wagner; Florian Fassio; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Luisa M Prechtl; Wolfgang Huber; Roland M Schmid; Oliver Gödje Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: G Greiwe; S Hoffmann; L Herich; M S Winkler; C J Trepte; C R Behem; M Petzoldt; D A Reuter; S A Haas Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Andrea Arnold; Christina Battista; Daniel Bia; Yanina Zócalo German; Ricardo L Armentano; Hien Tran; Mette S Olufsen Journal: J Verif Valid Uncertain Quantif Date: 2017-02-22
Authors: Bernd Saugel; Moritz Flick; Karim Bendjelid; Lester A H Critchley; Simon T Vistisen; Thomas W L Scheeren Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Philipp Helmer; Daniel Helf; Michael Sammeth; Bernd Winkler; Sebastian Hottenrott; Patrick Meybohm; Peter Kranke Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 4.964