Key result
Automated blood pressure archiving improves hypotension prediction with ~7 percentage points higher sensitivity over nurse documentation.
Why the study?
The comparative association with subsequent hypotension between invasive blood pressure measurements recorded by an automated archiving method and clinician-documented values from the same monitor needed to be determined.
Does an intelligent automated blood pressure archiving method improve the prediction of subsequent consensus hypotension compared to clinician-documented blood pressure measurements in stable intensive care patients?
Cohort (n=2,320)
No
Does an intelligent automated blood pressure archiving method improve the prediction of subsequent consensus hypotension compared to clinician-documented blood pressure measurements in stable intensive care patients?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Intelligent automated archiving of invasive blood pressure in the ICU is superior to clinician documentation as an early indicator of subsequent hemodynamic instability, supporting its use in automated early warning systems.
Objective To compare invasive blood pressure measurements recorded using an automated archiving method against clinician-documented values from the same invasive monitor and determine which method of recording blood pressure is more highly associated with the subsequent onset of hypotension. Design Retrospective comparative analysis. Setting Intensive care patients in a university hospital. Patients Mixed medical/surgical patients. Interventions None. Measurements and main results Using intervals of hemodynamic stability from 2,320 patient records, we retrospectively compared paired sources of invasive blood pressure data: 1) measurements documented by the nursing staff and 2) measurements generated by an automated archiving method that intelligently excludes unreliable (e.g., noisy or excessively damped) blood pressure values. The primary outcome was the occurrence of subsequent "consensus" hypotension, i.e., hypotension documented jointly by the nursing staff and the automated archive. The automated method could be adjusted to alter its operating characteristics (sensitivity and specificity). At a matched level of specificity (96%), blood pressures from the automated archiving method were more sensitive (28%) for subsequent consensus hypotension vs. the nurse-documented values (21%). Likewise, at a matched level of sensitivity (21%), the values from the automated method were more specific (99%) vs. the nurse-documented values (96%). These significant findings (p < .001) were consistent in a set of sensitivity analyses that employed alternative criteria for patient selection and the clinical outcome definition. Conclusions During periods of hemodynamic stability in an intensive care unit patient population, clinician-documented blood pressure values were inferior to values from an intelligent automated archiving method as early indicators of hemodynamic instability. Human oversight may not be necessary for creating a valid archive of vital sign data within an electronic medical record. Furthermore, if clinicians do have a tendency to disregard early indications of instability, then an automated archive may be a preferable source of data for so-called early warning systems that identify patients at risk of decompensation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hug et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in Intensive care patients during intervals of hemodynamic stability (n=2,320). Automated blood pressure archiving method vs. Clinician-documented (nursing staff) blood pressure measurements was evaluated on Occurrence of subsequent consensus hypotension (documented jointly by nursing staff and the automated archive) (p=< .001). Automated blood pressure archiving was more sensitive and specific than nurse documentation for predicting hypotension.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: