Bernd Saugel1, Phillip Hoppe2, Julia Y Nicklas2, Karim Kouz2, Annmarie Körner2, Julia C Hempel2, Jaap J Vos3, Gerhard Schön4, Thomas W L Scheeren3. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Outcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: bernd.saugel@gmx.de. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Finger cuff technologies allow continuous noninvasive arterial blood pressure (AP) and cardiac output/index (CO/CI) monitoring. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing finger cuff-derived AP and CO/CI measurements with invasive measurements in surgical or critically ill patients. We calculated overall random effects model-derived pooled estimates of the mean of the differences and of the percentage error (PE; CO/CI studies) with 95%-confidence intervals (95%-CI), pooled 95%-limits of agreement (95%-LOA), Cochran's Q and I2 (for heterogeneity). RESULTS: The pooled mean of the differences (95%-CI) was 4.2 (2.8 to 5.62) mm Hg with pooled 95%-LOA of -14.0 to 22.5 mm Hg for mean AP (Q=230.4 [P<0.001], I2=91%). For mean AP, the mean of the differences between finger cuff technologies and the reference method was ≤5±8 mm Hg in 9/27 data sets (33%). The pooled mean of the differences (95%-CI) was -0.13 (-0.43 to 0.18) L min-1 with pooled 95%-LOA of -2.56 to 2.23 L min-1 for CO (Q=66.7 [P<0.001], I2=90%) and 0.07 (0.01 to 0.13) L min-1 m-2 with pooled 95%-LOA of -1.20 to 1.15 L min-1 m-2 for CI (Q=5.8 [P=0.326], I2=0%). The overall random effects model-derived pooled estimate of the PE (95%-CI) was 43 (37 to 49)% (Q=48.6 [P<0.001], I2=63%). In 4/19 data sets (21%) the PE was ≤30%, and in 10/19 data sets (53%) it was ≤45%. CONCLUSIONS: Study heterogeneity was high. Several studies showed interchangeability between AP and CO/CI measurements using finger cuff technologies and reference methods. However, the pooled results of this meta-analysis indicate that AP and CO/CI measurements using finger cuff technologies and reference methods are not interchangeable in surgical or critically ill patients. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019119266.
BACKGROUND: Finger cuff technologies allow continuous noninvasive arterial blood pressure (AP) and cardiac output/index (CO/CI) monitoring. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing finger cuff-derived AP and CO/CI measurements with invasive measurements in surgical or critically illpatients. We calculated overall random effects model-derived pooled estimates of the mean of the differences and of the percentage error (PE; CO/CI studies) with 95%-confidence intervals (95%-CI), pooled 95%-limits of agreement (95%-LOA), Cochran's Q and I2 (for heterogeneity). RESULTS: The pooled mean of the differences (95%-CI) was 4.2 (2.8 to 5.62) mm Hg with pooled 95%-LOA of -14.0 to 22.5 mm Hg for mean AP (Q=230.4 [P<0.001], I2=91%). For mean AP, the mean of the differences between finger cuff technologies and the reference method was ≤5±8 mm Hg in 9/27 data sets (33%). The pooled mean of the differences (95%-CI) was -0.13 (-0.43 to 0.18) L min-1 with pooled 95%-LOA of -2.56 to 2.23 L min-1 for CO (Q=66.7 [P<0.001], I2=90%) and 0.07 (0.01 to 0.13) L min-1 m-2 with pooled 95%-LOA of -1.20 to 1.15 L min-1 m-2 for CI (Q=5.8 [P=0.326], I2=0%). The overall random effects model-derived pooled estimate of the PE (95%-CI) was 43 (37 to 49)% (Q=48.6 [P<0.001], I2=63%). In 4/19 data sets (21%) the PE was ≤30%, and in 10/19 data sets (53%) it was ≤45%. CONCLUSIONS: Study heterogeneity was high. Several studies showed interchangeability between AP and CO/CI measurements using finger cuff technologies and reference methods. However, the pooled results of this meta-analysis indicate that AP and CO/CI measurements using finger cuff technologies and reference methods are not interchangeable in surgical or critically illpatients. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019119266.
Authors: Younghoon Kwon; Patrick L Stafford; Martin C Baruch; Sung-Hoon Kim; Yeilim Cho; Sula Mazimba; Lawrence W Gimple Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Jon-Émile S Kenny; Igor Barjaktarevic; David C Mackenzie; Andrew M Eibl; Matthew Parrotta; Bradley F Long; Joseph K Eibl Journal: Intensive Care Med Exp Date: 2020-09-17
Authors: Jon-Émile S Kenny; Igor Barjaktarevic; David C Mackenzie; Mai Elfarnawany; Zhen Yang; Andrew M Eibl; Joseph K Eibl; Chul-Ho Kim; Bruce D Johnson Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2022-01-10
Authors: Luciano Frassanito; Pietro Paolo Giuri; Francesco Vassalli; Alessandra Piersanti; Alessia Longo; Bruno Antonio Zanfini; Stefano Catarci; Anna Fagotti; Giovanni Scambia; Gaetano Draisci Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 1.977
Authors: Ulf Lorenzen; Gunnar Elke; Jonathan Hansen; Markus Pohlmann; Jan H Beckmann; Phil Klose; Matthias Gruenewald; Jochen Renner Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Nicholas Eric Harrison; Sarah Meram; Xiangrui Li; Morgan B White; Sarah Henry; Sushane Gupta; Dongxiao Zhu; Peter Pang; Phillip Levy Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 3.240