Why the study?
Although oscillometric noninvasive blood pressure measurement is easy and fast, its accuracy and precision in critically ill patients remain constantly debated.
Does intermittent oscillometric noninvasive blood pressure measurement accurately and precisely estimate invasive arterial pressure in adult critically ill patients?
Does intermittent oscillometric noninvasive blood pressure measurement accurately and precisely estimate invasive arterial pressure in adult critically ill patients?
While oscillometric noninvasive blood pressure measurement has adequate overall accuracy for mean arterial pressure in critically ill patients, its wide limits of agreement may restrict its clinical applicability when precise blood pressure management is required.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
NIBP offers adequate MAP accuracy yet wide limits of agreement urge caution in precise titration; leaves open need for targeted validation trials.
Mean arterial pressure (MAP) is a key haemodynamic variable monitored in critically ill patients. The advantages of oscillometric noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurement are its easy and fast methodology; however, the accuracy and the precision of this measurement in critically ill patients is constantly debated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies comparing oscillometric NIBP methods with invasive arterial pressure (IAP) measurements. We included studies of adult critically ill patients, which evaluated MAP in the same patient by both NIBP and IAP at any site. We included only studies comparing simultaneous measurements of arterial pressure by NIBP and IAP, reporting their results using mean difference and SD of agreement. The main outcome was to define the bias of the MAP measured by NIBP over the IAP measurement. The quality of the studies was analysed by the QUADAS 2 tool. Seven studies and 1593 patients were included in the main analysis. The oscillometric NIBP method had a mean value of -1.50 mmHg when compared with IAP (95% CI: -3.34 to 0.35; I2 = 96% for random effects model, P < 0.01). The limits of agreement for MAP varied between -14.6 mmHg and +40.3 mmHg. NIBP had an adequate accuracy regarding MAP measurements by oscillometry. Limits of agreement may thus narrow the clinical applicability in scenarios in which there is a need for a more precise management of blood pressure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nedel et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: