Continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring using the ClearSight device showed acceptable agreement with invasive radial artery pressure during AF ablation (mean bias for mean pressure 2.31 mmHg).
Observational (n=55)
No
Does continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring with the ClearSight device show acceptable agreement with invasive radial artery pressure monitoring in patients undergoing transcatheter AF ablation?
Continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring using the ClearSight device shows acceptable agreement with invasive radial artery pressure during transcatheter atrial fibrillation ablation.
Effect estimate: Mean bias: systolic -12.97 mmHg, diastolic -1.85 mmHg, mean 2.31 mmHg (95% CI Level of agreement: systolic -14.24 to 40.20, diastolic -18.54 to 14.84, mean -14.84 to 19.46)
INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is still carried out with continuous invasive radial arterial blood pressure (IBP) monitoring in many centers. Continuous noninvasive blood pressure (CNBP) measurement using the volume-clamp method is a noninvasive alternative method used in ICU. No data on CNBP reliability are available in the electrophysiology lab during AF ablation, where rhythm variations are common. BACKGROUND: The objective of the present study was to compare continuous noninvasive arterial pressure measured with the ClearSight device (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) with invasive radial artery pressure used as the reference method during AF ablation. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 55 consecutive patients (age 62 ± 11 years, 80% male) undergoing transcatheter AF ablation (62% paroxysmal, 38% persistent) at our center. Standard of care IBP monitoring via a radial cannula and a contralateral noninvasive finger volume-clamp CNBP measurement device were positioned simultaneously in all patients for the entire procedure. Bland-Altman analysis was used to analyze the agreement between the two techniques. RESULTS: A total of 1219 paired measurements for systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure were obtained in 55 subjects, with a mean (SD) of 22 (9) measurements per patient. The mean bias (SD) was -12.97 (13.89) mmHg for systolic pressure (level of agreement -14.24-40.20; correlation coefficient 0.84), -1.85 (8.52) mmHg for diastolic pressure (level of agreement -18.54-14.84; correlation coefficient 0.77) and 2.31 (8.75) mmHg for mean pressure (level of agreement -14.84-19.46; correlation coefficient 0.85). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing AF ablation, CNBP monitoring with the ClearSight device showed acceptable agreement with IBP monitoring. Larger studies are needed to confirm the potential clinical implications of continuous noninvasive BP monitoring during AF ablation.
Cori et al. (Mon,) conducted a observational in Atrial fibrillation undergoing transcatheter ablation (n=55). Continuous noninvasive arterial pressure (CNBP) measurement (ClearSight device) vs. Invasive radial artery pressure (IBP) monitoring was evaluated on Agreement between continuous noninvasive arterial pressure and invasive radial artery pressure (Mean bias: systolic -12.97 mmHg, diastolic -1.85 mmHg, mean 2.31 mmHg, 95% CI Level of agreement: systolic -14.24 to 40.20, diastolic -18.54 to 14.84, mean -14.84 to 19.46). Continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring using the ClearSight device showed acceptable agreement with invasive radial artery pressure during AF ablation (mean bias for mean pressure 2.31 mmHg).