Why the study?
Intradialytic hypotension is linked to morbidity and mortality, but because it is often asymptomatic, routine intermittent cuff readings may miss episodes.
Does continuous finger cuff BP monitoring detect more intradialytic hypotension episodes than intermittent brachial artery cuff monitoring in chronic dialysis patients?
Does continuous finger cuff BP monitoring detect more intradialytic hypotension episodes than intermittent brachial artery cuff monitoring in chronic dialysis patients?
Intermittent BP monitoring severely underestimates intradialytic hypotension, but current continuous finger cuff devices lack the accuracy and precision required for routine clinical use.
Routine intermittent BP monitoring may miss IDH episodes; this Level 5 study leaves open whether continuous finger-cuff monitoring improves dialysis outcomes.
Background: Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) has been associated with both morbidity and mortality. Yet, as IDH often occurs asymptomatic, it might be easily missed with routine twice per hour brachial artery cuff-blood pressure (BAC-BP) readings. This study evaluated differences in IDH detection between intermittent BAC-BP and continuous BP monitoring with a finger cuff (FC-BP). Validation of the FC device was an additional objective. Methods: In 40 chronic dialysis patients, intradialytic BP was measured during four sessions using (i) BAC-BP every 15 minutes and (ii) beat-to-beat FC-BP readings, which were averaged over 20-seconds intervals. IDH was defined as a systolic BP (SBP) <90 or <100 mmHg, depending on pre-dialysis SBP. Only FC measurements with an acceptable accuracy (i.e. mean SBP bias ≤10 mmHg) were used for the IDH analysis. For validation, sequential same-arm BP measurements were compared, using Bland-Altman analyses to assess agreement and four-quadrant plots to evaluate concordance. Results: For IDH analysis, 144 BAC-BP readings and 18 163 FC-BP measurements were recorded in 106 hours. While BAC-BP identified 20 IDH episodes, 441 were detected by FC-BP. For validation, Bland-Altman analyses of 1221 paired BP readings showed a mean bias ± limits of agreement of -13.3 ± 44.5 mmHg for SBP and -13.3 ± 25.5 mmHg for diastolic BP. Only 27.7% of the paired FC-BP readings met the acceptable accuracy criterion. Concordance rates were 34.3% and 36.3%, respectively. Conclusions: First, the occurrence of IDH is severely underestimated with intermittent BP monitoring. Second, FC-BP appears unsuitable for routine intradialytic BP monitoring due to its poor accuracy, precision, and concordance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chaara et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: