Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
July 1, 2021Annals of Cardiac AnaesthesiaOpen Access

Noninvasive continuous arterial pressure monitoring during anesthesia induction in patients undergoing cardiac surgery

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Key result

Noninvasive arterial pressure measurement using ClearSight during anesthesia induction for cardiac surgery showed a mean difference of -5.47 mmHg for mean arterial pressure compared to invasive measurement.

Why the study?

The study compared noninvasive continuous arterial pressure monitoring using the ClearSight vascular-unloading technique with invasive arterial pressure measurement during anesthesia induction for major cardiac surgery.

Does noninvasive continuous arterial pressure monitoring using ClearSight accurately reflect invasive arterial pressure measurements during anesthesia induction in patients undergoing major cardiac surgery?

Population

54 patients undergoing major cardiac surgery

Comparison

ClearSight noninvasive arterial pressure measurement vs invasive arterial pressure measurement

Design

Prospective monocentric study

Follow-up

Mean time period of 27 minutes

Authors

PFP FrankFLFrank LogemannCGClemens Gras

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Noninvasive systolic bias warrants caution on induction; leaves open validation before replacing invasive monitoring in cardiac surgery.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=54)

Multicenter

No

Structured PICO

Does noninvasive continuous arterial pressure monitoring using ClearSight accurately reflect invasive arterial pressure measurements during anesthesia induction in patients undergoing major cardiac surgery?

P
Population
54 adult patients undergoing elective major cardiac surgery with extracorporeal circulation, monitored simultaneously with invasive and noninvasive arterial pressure measurement during anesthesia induction.
I
Intervention
Noninvasive continuous arterial pressure measurement using the ClearSight™ vascular-unloading technique (finger cuff placed ipsilateral to the arterial catheter).
C
Comparator
Invasive arterial pressure measurement via radial artery cannulation (reference method).
O
Outcome
Agreement between noninvasive and invasive arterial pressure measurements (systolic, diastolic, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate) during induction of anesthesia over a mean time period of 27 minutes.surrogate

Main Result

Mean Difference: -5.47 (95% CI -27.2–16.26)

p-value: p=<0.05

Noninvasive continuous arterial pressure monitoring using ClearSight provides acceptable accuracy for mean arterial pressure compared to invasive monitoring during anesthesia induction in major cardiac surgery.

Limitations

  • Potential impact on perfusion distal to the catheter due to ipsilateral placement of the noninvasive cuff
  • Low sampling frequency (1 value per minute) may not fully reflect rapid blood pressure changes
  • Invasive radial artery pressure may not optimally reflect brachial artery pressures calculated by the ClearSight system
  • Lack of accuracy using the volume clamp method in situations with low perfusion, peripheral vasoconstriction, or chronic vascular disease
  • Potential impact on perfusion distal to the catheter due to ipsilateral placement of the ClearSight cuff
  • Invasive radial artery pressure may not optimally reflect brachial artery pressures calculated by ClearSight due to pulse pressure amplification
  • Lack of accuracy using the volume clamp method in situations with low perfusion, low cardiac output, peripheral vasoconstriction, or chronic vascular disease

Cite This Study

Frank et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Major cardiac surgery (n=54). ClearSight noninvasive arterial pressure measurement vs. Invasive arterial pressure measurement was evaluated on Mean difference in mean arterial pressure (MAP) (MD -5.47 mmHg, 95% CI -27.20 to 16.26, p=<0.05). Noninvasive arterial pressure measurement using ClearSight during anesthesia induction for cardiac surgery showed a mean difference of -5.47 mmHg for mean arterial pressure compared to invasive measurement.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a203ea3bf5c9994518fd87fhttps://doi.org/10.4103/aca.aca_120_20
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Validation of noninvasive continuous arterial pressure measurement by ClearSight System™ during induction of anesthesia for cardiovascular surgery2020 · 30 citations
  2. 2Continuous Noninvasive Arterial Pressure Monitoring in Obese Patients During Bariatric Surgery: An Evaluation of the Vascular Unloading Technique (Clearsight system)2019 · 46 citations
  3. 3The Use of Non-Invasive Continuous Blood Pressure Measuring (ClearSight®) during Central Neuraxial Anaesthesia for Caesarean Section—A Retrospective Validation Study2022 · 10 citations
  4. 4Use of pulse contour technology for continuous blood pressure monitoring in pediatric patients2020
  5. 5Comparison between Invasive and Non-Invasive Blood Pressure Monitoring in High-Risk Prolonged Surgeries in a Medical College of Assam2021 · 1 citations