4.7 Article

The Effect of Intermittent versus Continuous Non-Invasive Blood Pressure Monitoring on the Detection of Intraoperative Hypotension, a Sub-Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 14, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11144083

Keywords

hemodynamics; perioperative; anesthesiology; surgery

Funding

  1. Edwards Lifesciences LCC [PA-1412-0001-AMC]
  2. Edwards Lifesciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intraoperative hypotension is associated with postoperative complications, and the current intermittent cuff measurement method may result in missed events and delayed recognition of hypotensive events.
Intraoperative hypotension is associated with postoperative complications. However, in the majority of surgical patients, blood pressure (BP) is measured intermittently with a non-invasive cuff around the upper arm (NIBP-arm). We hypothesized that NIBP-arm, compared with a non-invasive continuous alternative, would result in missed events and in delayed recognition of hypotensive events. This was a sub-study of a previously published cohort study in adult patients undergoing surgery. The detection of hypotension (mean arterial pressure below 65 mmHg) was compared using two non-invasive methods; intermittent oscillometric NIBP-arm versus continuous NIBP measured with a finger cuff (cNIBP-finger) (Nexfin, Edwards Lifesciences). cNIBP-finger was used as the reference standard. Out of 350 patients, 268 patients (77%) had one or more hypotensive events during surgery. Out of the 286 patients, 72 (27%) had one or more missed hypotensive events. The majority of hypotensive events (92%) were detected with NIBP-arm, but were recognized at a median of 1.2 (0.6-2.2) minutes later. Intermittent BP monitoring resulted in missed hypotensive events and the hypotensive events that were detected were recognized with a delay. This study highlights the advantage of continuous monitoring. Future studies are needed to understand the effect on patient outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available