-
Something wrong with this record ?
Factors influencing the accuracy of non-invasive blood pressure measurements in patients admitted for cardiogenic shock
J. Seidlerová, P. Tůmová, R. Rokyta, M. Hromadka,
Language English Country Great Britain
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
NLK
BioMedCentral
from 2001-01-12
BioMedCentral Open Access
from 2001
Directory of Open Access Journals
from 2001
Free Medical Journals
from 2001
PubMed Central
from 2001
Europe PubMed Central
from 2001
ProQuest Central
from 2009-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2001-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2001-06-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2001-01-01
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2001-01-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 2009-01-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 2001
Springer Nature OA/Free Journals
from 2001-12-01
- MeSH
- Arterial Pressure * MeSH
- Time Factors MeSH
- Shock, Cardiogenic diagnosis physiopathology MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Blood Pressure Determination methods MeSH
- Oscillometry MeSH
- Auscultation MeSH
- Predictive Value of Tests MeSH
- Patient Admission * MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Reproducibility of Results MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
BACKGROUND: Although invasively measured blood pressure (invBP) is regarded as a "gold standard" in critically ill cardiac patients, the non-invasive BP is still widely used, at least at the initiation of medical care. The erroneous interpretation of BP can lead to clinical errors. We therefore investigated the agreement of both methods with respect to some common clinical situation. METHODS: We included 85 patients hospitalized for cardiogenic shock. We measured BP every 6 h for the first 72 h of hospitalization, in all patients. Each set of BP measurements included two invasive (invBP), two auscultatory (auscBP), and two oscillometric (oscBP) BP measurements. InvBP was considered as a gold standard. Mean non-invasive arterial pressure (MAP) was calculated as (diastolic pressure + (pulse pressure ÷ 3)). We used Bland-Altman analysis and we calculated concordance correlation coefficients to assess agreement between different BP methods. RESULTS: We obtained 967 sets of BP measurements. AuscMAP and oscMAP were on average only 0.4 ± 8.2 and 1.8 ± 8.5 mmHg higher than invMAP, respectively. On the other hand, auscSBP and oscSBP were on average - 6.1 ± 11.4 and - 4.1 ± 9.8 mmHg lower than invSBP, respectively. However, the mean differences and variability for systolic and diastolic BP variability were large; the 2 standard deviation differences were ± 24 and 18 mmHg. In hypotension, non-invasive BP tended to be higher than invBP while the opposite was true for high BP values. Clinical conditions associated with hypotension generally worsened the accuracy of non-invasive MAP. CONCLUSIONS: Mean arterial pressure measured non-invasively appears to be in good agreement with invasive MAP in patients admitted for cardiogenic shock. Several clinical associated with hypotension can affect accuracy of non-invasive measurement. Auscultatory and oscillometric measurements had similar accuracy even in patients with arrhythmia.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc20006238
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20200525093114.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 200511s2019 xxk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1186/s12872-019-1129-9 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)31215405
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxk
- 100 1_
- $a Seidlerová, Jitka $u Internal Department II, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic. Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
- 245 10
- $a Factors influencing the accuracy of non-invasive blood pressure measurements in patients admitted for cardiogenic shock / $c J. Seidlerová, P. Tůmová, R. Rokyta, M. Hromadka,
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: Although invasively measured blood pressure (invBP) is regarded as a "gold standard" in critically ill cardiac patients, the non-invasive BP is still widely used, at least at the initiation of medical care. The erroneous interpretation of BP can lead to clinical errors. We therefore investigated the agreement of both methods with respect to some common clinical situation. METHODS: We included 85 patients hospitalized for cardiogenic shock. We measured BP every 6 h for the first 72 h of hospitalization, in all patients. Each set of BP measurements included two invasive (invBP), two auscultatory (auscBP), and two oscillometric (oscBP) BP measurements. InvBP was considered as a gold standard. Mean non-invasive arterial pressure (MAP) was calculated as (diastolic pressure + (pulse pressure ÷ 3)). We used Bland-Altman analysis and we calculated concordance correlation coefficients to assess agreement between different BP methods. RESULTS: We obtained 967 sets of BP measurements. AuscMAP and oscMAP were on average only 0.4 ± 8.2 and 1.8 ± 8.5 mmHg higher than invMAP, respectively. On the other hand, auscSBP and oscSBP were on average - 6.1 ± 11.4 and - 4.1 ± 9.8 mmHg lower than invSBP, respectively. However, the mean differences and variability for systolic and diastolic BP variability were large; the 2 standard deviation differences were ± 24 and 18 mmHg. In hypotension, non-invasive BP tended to be higher than invBP while the opposite was true for high BP values. Clinical conditions associated with hypotension generally worsened the accuracy of non-invasive MAP. CONCLUSIONS: Mean arterial pressure measured non-invasively appears to be in good agreement with invasive MAP in patients admitted for cardiogenic shock. Several clinical associated with hypotension can affect accuracy of non-invasive measurement. Auscultatory and oscillometric measurements had similar accuracy even in patients with arrhythmia.
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 12
- $a arteriální tlak $7 D062186
- 650 _2
- $a poslech $7 D001314
- 650 _2
- $a měření krevního tlaku $x metody $7 D001795
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a oscilometrie $7 D009991
- 650 12
- $a příjem pacientů $7 D010343
- 650 _2
- $a prediktivní hodnota testů $7 D011237
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 _2
- $a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
- 650 _2
- $a kardiogenní šok $x diagnóza $x patofyziologie $7 D012770
- 650 _2
- $a časové faktory $7 D013997
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Tůmová, Pavlína $u Cardiology Department, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen and Faculty Hospital, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Rokyta, Richard $u Cardiology Department, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen and Faculty Hospital, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Hromadka, Milan $u Cardiology Department, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen and Faculty Hospital, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic. hromadka@fnplzen.cz.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00006809 $t BMC cardiovascular disorders $x 1471-2261 $g Roč. 19, č. 1 (2019), s. 150
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31215405 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20200511 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20200525093115 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1525096 $s 1096294
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2019 $b 19 $c 1 $d 150 $e 20190618 $i 1471-2261 $m BMC cardiovascular disorders $n BMC Cardiovasc Disord $x MED00006809
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20200511