Key result
NexfinTM beat-to-beat blood pressure monitoring showed unacceptable agreement with intermittent oscillometry for systolic blood pressure during cesarean delivery (bias -10 mmHg; limits -61 to +41 mmHg).
Why the study?
Early detection of arterial hypotension during cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia is important, prompting evaluation of the validity of Nexfin compared with conventional intermittent oscillometric blood pressure monitoring.
Does NexfinTM beat-to-beat noninvasive blood pressure monitoring improve the detection of hypotension compared to conventional intermittent oscillometric measurement in pregnant women undergoing elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia?
Observational (n=174)
Open-label
Yes
Does NexfinTM beat-to-beat noninvasive blood pressure monitoring improve the detection of hypotension compared to conventional intermittent oscillometric measurement in pregnant women undergoing elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia?
Mean Difference: -10 (95% CI -61–41)
While NexfinTM detects hypotension earlier than standard intermittent oscillometry during cesarean delivery, its agreement for systolic blood pressure measurement is not clinically acceptable.
Unacceptable agreement precludes NexfinTM adoption for SBP monitoring in cesarean delivery; leaves open whether earlier detection improves outcomes in trials.
Early detection of arterial hypotension during cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia is important. This study aims to compare the validity of NexfinTM as beat-to-beat noninvasive blood pressure monitoring with conventional intermittent oscillometric measurement of blood pressure during elective cesarean delivery.This open prospective observational bicentric study was performed between January 2013 and December 2015. We simultaneously recorded arterial blood pressure with both techniques in pregnant women undergoing elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. The primary outcome was a Bland-Altman analysis of systolic blood pressure measurement comparing NexfinTM and a conventional method. The secondary outcomes were the time to detect the first relevant hypotensive episode and the comparison of both devices using a four-quadrant graph.One hundred and seventy-four parturients completed the study, and 2640 pairs of systolic blood pressure measurements were analyzed. Bias was -10 mmHg with upper and lower limits of agreement of -61 and +41 mmHg. In 73.9% of the cases, the two techniques provided the same information (normotension or hypotension), but the conventional method missed 20.8% of measurements, with NexfinTM detecting 16.2% more hypotensive measurements. The median [25-75 percentiles] duration to detect the first hypotensive measurement was 331 [206-480] seconds for NexfinTM and 440 [300-500] s for intermittent oscillometry (P < .001).The agreement between NexfinTM and an intermittent method for the measurement of systolic blood pressure was not in an acceptable range during cesarean delivery, although NexfinTM may detect hypotension earlier than the standard method.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01732133; November 22, 2012.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bobet et al. (2021) conducted an observational in elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia (n=174). NexfinTM beat-to-beat noninvasive blood pressure monitoring vs. conventional intermittent oscillometric measurement was evaluated on Bland-Altman analysis of systolic blood pressure measurement (Bias -10 mmHg, 95% CI -61 to 41). NexfinTM beat-to-beat blood pressure monitoring showed unacceptable agreement with intermittent oscillometry for systolic blood pressure during cesarean delivery (bias -10 mmHg; limits -61 to +41 mmHg).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: