March 21, 2017BMC AnesthesiologyOpen Access

The Bland-Altman comparison yielded a bias of -0.57, -2.52, 1.01 mmHg and standard deviation of 7.34, 6.47, 5.33 mmHg for systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures, respectively (p < 0.001 for all comparisons).

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

Does the continuous non-invasive CareTaker device accurately measure blood pressure compared to an invasive arterial catheter in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery?

Population

n=24 patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery

Comparison

Continuous non-invasive blood pressure… vs Invasive radial arterial catheter

Design

Cohort

Follow-up

first thirty minutes of the surgical procedure

Authors

IGIrwin Gratz EDEdward Deal FSFrancis Spitz

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Suggests this non-invasive device may offer acceptable blood pressure tracking during abdominal surgery; leaves open whether.

Structured PICO

Does the continuous non-invasive CareTaker device accurately measure blood pressure compared to an invasive arterial catheter in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery?

Population

n=24 patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery

Intervention

Continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitoring via CareTaker (CT) device using a finger cuff applied to the contralateral thumb

Comparator

Invasive radial arterial catheter

Outcome

Accuracy and precision of mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic and diastolic blood pressures (bias and standard deviation) compared to arterial cathetersurrogate

The CareTaker non-invasive blood pressure device provides measurements comparable to invasive arterial catheters within AAMI validation limits during major abdominal surgery.

Limitations

small sample size

Cite This Study

Gratz et al. (2017) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7e7b7eef8e9536aa856825 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0337-z

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

March 21, 2017BMC AnesthesiologyOpen Access

The Bland-Altman comparison yielded a bias of -0.57, -2.52, 1.01 mmHg and standard deviation of 7.34, 6.47, 5.33 mmHg for systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures, respectively (p < 0.001 for all comparisons).

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

Does the continuous non-invasive CareTaker device accurately measure blood pressure compared to an invasive arterial catheter in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery?

Population

n=24 patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery

Comparison

Continuous non-invasive blood pressure… vs Invasive radial arterial catheter

Design

Cohort

Follow-up

first thirty minutes of the surgical procedure

Authors

IGIrwin Gratz EDEdward Deal FSFrancis Spitz

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Suggests this non-invasive device may offer acceptable blood pressure tracking during abdominal surgery; leaves open whether.

Structured PICO

Does the continuous non-invasive CareTaker device accurately measure blood pressure compared to an invasive arterial catheter in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery?

Population

n=24 patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery

Intervention

Continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitoring via CareTaker (CT) device using a finger cuff applied to the contralateral thumb

Comparator

Invasive radial arterial catheter

Outcome

Accuracy and precision of mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic and diastolic blood pressures (bias and standard deviation) compared to arterial cathetersurrogate

The CareTaker non-invasive blood pressure device provides measurements comparable to invasive arterial catheters within AAMI validation limits during major abdominal surgery.

Limitations

small sample size

Cite This Study

Gratz et al. (2017) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7e7b7eef8e9536aa856825 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-017-0337-z

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark