Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
March 18, 2022Open Access

Measurement error risk for finger-cuff blood pressure after aortic valve replacement are aortic valve area index and heart rate; FloTrac vs ClearSight

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

ClearSight blood pressure measurements may be inaccurate compared to intra-arterial pressure after aortic valve replacement, and the clinical risk and factors associated with measurement discrepancies remain uncertain.

Does non-invasive finger-cuff blood pressure measurement (ClearSight) accurately reflect intra-arterial pressure in elderly patients after TAVR?

Population

30 adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (881 paired measurements)

Comparison

ClearSight finger-cuff blood pressure vs intra-arterial pressure

Design

Agreement and error grid analysis study

Authors

MYMusashi YahagiHitachi General HospitalMSMomoko SasakiUniversity of Tsukuba HospitalKOKyuma Omi

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Implication

ClearSight BP may be inaccurate post-TAVR; leaves open clinical risk and need for validation studies.

Structured PICO

Does non-invasive finger-cuff blood pressure measurement (ClearSight) accurately reflect intra-arterial pressure in elderly patients after TAVR?

P
Population
30 adults aged over 65 years (age range 78-91, 53% female) who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) under general anesthesia, yielding 881 paired blood pressure measurements.
I
Intervention
Non-invasive continuous arterial blood pressure measurement using finger-cuff technology (ClearSight).
C
Comparator
Invasive intra-arterial pressure (IAP) measurement via radial artery catheter (FloTrac).
O
Outcome
Agreement of ClearSight blood pressure with intra-arterial pressure and clinical risk evaluated by classifying measurement errors into zones A (no risk) to E (dangerous risk) using error grid analysis.surrogate

Non-invasive finger-cuff blood pressure monitoring may be inaccurate in post-TAVR patients, particularly those with a small aortic valve area index or low cardiac index.

Limitations

  • Error grid analysis used is not a standard method for comparing two different devices
  • IAP and CSAP were measured in the ipsilateral upper extremity, which may affect the pulse wave transmitted to the peripheral finger

Cite This Study

Yahagi et al. (2022) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7652d79af63782f5bcbea1https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1460002/v1
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. 1Accuracy of invasive arterial pressure monitoring in cardiovascular patients: an observational study2014 · 198 citations
  2. 2Computer Program for Error Grid Analysis in Arterial Blood Pressure Method Comparison Studies2019 · 17 citations
  3. 3Pulse contour cardiac output derived from non‐invasive arterial pressure in cardiovascular disease2010 · 201 citations
  4. 4Intraoperative Blood Pressure Monitoring in Obese Patients2020 · 67 citations
  5. 5Surgical and Patient Risk Factors for Severe Arterial Line Complications in Adults2015 · 167 citations