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.

Biomedical Centre Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen Charles University Pilsen Czech Republic

Cardiology Department University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen and Faculty Hospital Charles University Pilsen Czech Republic

Internal Department 2 University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen Charles University Pilsen Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Chatterjee A, DePriest K, Blair R, et al. Results of a survey of blood pressure monitoring by intensivists in critically ill patients: a preliminary study. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(12):2335–2338. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181fa057f. PubMed DOI

Lakhal K, Ehrmann S, Boulain T. Noninvasive BP monitoring in the critically ill: time to abandon the arterial catheter. Chest. 2018;153(4):1023–1039. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.10.030. PubMed DOI

McGhee BH, Bridges EJ. Monitoring arterial blood pressure: what you may not know. Crit Care Nurse. 2002;22(2):60–64. PubMed

Bur A, Herkner H, Vlcek M, et al. Factors influencing the accuracy of oscillometric blood pressure measurement in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(3):793–799. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000053650.12025.1A. PubMed DOI

Lakhal K, Ehrmann S, Martin M, et al. Blood pressure monitoring during arrhythmia: agreement between automated brachial cuff and intra-arterial measurements. Brit J Anaesth. 2015;115(4):540–549. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev304. PubMed DOI

Lehman LW, Saeed M, Talmor D, et al. Methods of blood pressure measurement in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(1):34–40. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318265ea46. PubMed DOI PMC

Wax DB, Lin HM, Leibowitz AB. Invasive and concomitant noninvasive intraoperative blood pressure monitoring: observed differences in measurements and associated therapeutic interventions. Anesthesiology. 2011;115(5):973–978. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182330286. PubMed DOI

Tasker F, De Greeff A, Shennan AH. Development and validation of a blinded hybrid device according to the European hypertension society protocol: Nissei DM-3000. J Hum Hypertens. 2010;24(9):609–616. doi: 10.1038/jhh.2009.113. PubMed DOI

Bland JM, Altman DG. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17(4):571–582. doi: 10.1080/10543400701329422. PubMed DOI

Carrasco JL, Phillips BR, Puig-Martinez J, et al. Estimation of the concordance correlation coefficient for repeated measures using SAS and R. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2013;109:293–304. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2012.09.002. PubMed DOI

O'Brien E, Petrie J, Littler W, et al. The British hypertension society protocol for the evaluation of blood pressure measuring devices. J Hypertens. 1993;11(2):S43–S62. PubMed

Picone DS, Schultz MG, Otahal P, et al. Accuracy of cuff-measured blood pressure: systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(5):572–586. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.05.064. PubMed DOI

Hynson JM, Sessler DI, Moayeri A, et al. Thermoregulatory and anesthetic-induced alterations in the differences among femoral, radial, and oscillometric blood pressures. Anesthesiology. 1994;81(6):1411–1421. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199412000-00016. PubMed DOI

O'Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, et al. Practice guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension for clinic, ambulatory and self blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2005;23(4):697–701. doi: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000163132.84890.c4. PubMed DOI

Bos WJ, Verrij E, Vincent HH, et al. How to assess mean blood pressure properly at the brachial artery level. J Hypertens. 2007;25(4):751–755. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32803fb621. PubMed DOI

Furlanis G, Grillo A, Baldi C, et al. How to improve the calculation of mean arterial pressure at the brachial artery level. J Hypertens. 2018;36(Suppl 1):2.