Literature DB >> 29108815

Noninvasive BP Monitoring in the Critically Ill: Time to Abandon the Arterial Catheter?

Karim Lakhal1, Stephan Ehrmann2, Thierry Boulain3.   

Abstract

Although its reliability is often questioned, noninvasive BP (NIBP)-monitoring with an oscillometric arm cuff is widely used, even in critically ill patients in shock. When correctly implemented, modern arm NIBP devices can provide accurate and precise measurements of mean BP, as well as clinically meaningful information such as identification of hypotension and hypertension and monitoring of patient response to therapy. Even in specific circumstances such as arrhythmia, hypotension, vasopressor infusion, and possibly in obese patients, arm NIBP may be useful, contrary to widespread belief. Hence, postponing the arterial catheter insertion pending the initiation of more urgent diagnostic and therapeutic measures could be a suitable strategy. Given the arterial catheter-related burden, fully managing critically ill patients without any arterial catheter may also be an option. Indeed, the benefit that patients may experience from an arterial catheter has been questioned in studies failing to show that its use reduces mortality. However, randomized controlled trials to confirm that NIBP can safely fully replace the arterial catheter have yet to be performed. In addition to intermittent measurements, continuous NIBP monitoring is a booming field, as illustrated by the release onto the market of user-friendly devices, based on digital volume clamp and applanation tonometry. Although the imperfect accuracy and precision of these devices would probably benefit from technical refinements, their good ability to track, in real time, the direction of changes in BP is an undeniable asset. Their drawbacks and advantages and whether these devices are currently ready to use in the critically ill patient are discussed in this review.
Copyright © 2017 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BP; critical care; monitoring

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29108815     DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.10.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chest        ISSN: 0012-3692            Impact factor:   9.410


  7 in total

Review 1.  Accuracy of non-invasive and minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring: where do we stand?

Authors:  Issa Pour-Ghaz; Theodore Manolukas; Nathalie Foray; Joel Raja; Aranyak Rawal; Uzoma N Ibebuogu; Rami N Khouzam
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

Review 2.  Techniques for Non-Invasive Monitoring of Arterial Blood Pressure.

Authors:  Agnes S Meidert; Bernd Saugel
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2018-01-08

3.  Factors influencing the accuracy of non-invasive blood pressure measurements in patients admitted for cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Jitka Seidlerová; Pavlína Tůmová; Richard Rokyta; Milan Hromadka
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 2.298

4.  A Shallow U-Net Architecture for Reliably Predicting Blood Pressure (BP) from Photoplethysmogram (PPG) and Electrocardiogram (ECG) Signals.

Authors:  Sakib Mahmud; Nabil Ibtehaz; Amith Khandakar; Anas M Tahir; Tawsifur Rahman; Khandaker Reajul Islam; Md Shafayet Hossain; M Sohel Rahman; Farayi Musharavati; Mohamed Arselene Ayari; Mohammad Tariqul Islam; Muhammad E H Chowdhury
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  Pulse arrival time as a surrogate of blood pressure.

Authors:  Eoin Finnegan; Shaun Davidson; Mirae Harford; João Jorge; Peter Watkinson; Duncan Young; Lionel Tarassenko; Mauricio Villarroel
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Top 10 Pearls for the Recognition, Evaluation, and Management of Maternal Sepsis.

Authors:  Andrea Shields; Viviana de Assis; Torre Halscott
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Oscillometric versus invasive blood pressure measurement in patients with shock: a prospective observational study in the emergency department.

Authors:  Agnes S Meidert; Michael E Dolch; Konstanze Mühlbauer; Bernhard Zwissler; Matthias Klein; Josef Briegel; Stephan Czerner
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2020-02-13       Impact factor: 2.502

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.