4.6 Article

Intra-arterial blood pressure reading in intensive care unit patients in the lateral position

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING
卷 21, 期 13-14, 页码 1825-1830

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03840.x

关键词

blood pressure; body position; critically ill; intra-arterial; lateral body position; routine turning

类别

资金

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Routine lateral turning of patients has become an accepted standard of care to prevent complications of immobility. The haemodynamic and oxygenation effects for patients in both lateral positions (45 degrees) are still a matter of debate. We aimed to study the effect of these positions on blood pressure, heart rate and oxygenation in a general intensive care population. Design. Observational study. Method. Twenty stable intensive care unit patients had intra-arterial blood pressure recordings in the supine and lateral positions with the correction of hydrostatic height compared with a fixed reference point (phlebostatic level). A multilevel model was used to analyse the data. Results. Mean arterial pressure readings in the lateral positions were, on average, 5 mmHg higher than in the supine position (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between mean arterial pressure recordings in the left and right lateral position (p = 1.0). No important differences in oxygenation and heart rate were observed. After correction for covariates, the effects persisted. Conclusion. Our study demonstrated an increase, albeit small, in blood pressure in the lateral positions. No major differences between the left and right lateral position were found. No important differences in oxygenation and heart rate were observed. Relevance to clinical practice. Turning haemodynamically stable patients in the intensive care unit has no important effects on blood pressure measurements when continuous hydrostatic height correction is applied.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据