Why the study?
Does non-invasive continuous arterial blood pressure measurement using a Nexfin monitor improve measurement reliability compared to traditional NIBP and IBP in patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery?
Does non-invasive continuous arterial blood pressure measurement using a Nexfin monitor improve measurement reliability compared to traditional NIBP and IBP in patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery?
The Nexfin non-invasive continuous blood pressure monitor provides mean arterial pressure measurements that correlate better with invasive arterial monitoring than traditional non-invasive intermittent methods during orthopaedic surgery.
Nexfin may suit low-risk orthopaedic cases needing continuity; leaves open validation in larger trials before wider adoption.
OBJECTIVE: Continuous invasive arterial blood pressure (IBP) monitoring remains the gold standard for BP measurement, but traditional oscillometric non-invasive intermittent pressure (NIBP) measurement is used in most low-to-moderate risk procedures. This study compared non-invasive continuous arterial BP measurement using a Nexfin® monitor with NIBP and IBP monitors. METHODS: This was a single-centre, prospective, pilot study in patients scheduled for elective orthopaedic surgery. Systolic BP, diastolic BP and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) were measured by Nexfin®, IBP and NIBP at five intraoperative time-points. Pearson correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots and trending ability of Nexfin® measurements were used as criteria for success in the investigation of measurement reliability. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were enrolled in the study. For MAP, there was a sufficient correlation between IBP/Nexfin® (Pearson = 0.75), which was better than the correlation between IBP/NIBP (Pearson = 0.70). Bland-Altman analysis of the data showed that compared with IBP, there was a higher percentage error for MAPNIBP (30%) compared with MAPNexfin® (27%). Nexfin® and NIBP underestimated systolic BP; NIBP also underestimated diastolic BP and MAP. Trending ability for MAPNexfin® and MAPNIBP were comparable to IBP. CONCLUSION: Non-invasive BP measurement with Nexfin® was comparable with IBP and tended to be more precise than NIBP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Balzer et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: