The hypotension prediction index versus mean arterial pressure in predicting intraoperative hypotension

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

BACKGROUND: The hypotension prediction index (HPI) predicts hypotension, with randomised trials showing a significant reduction in hypotension-related metrics. However, the reliability of previous validation studies is debated, and it's unclear if mean arterial pressure (MAP) can be used interchangeably with HPI. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the effectiveness of HPI versus MAP thresholds in predicting intraoperative hypotension, focusing on three clinically relevant metrics: time from alert to event, positive predictive value (PPV), and proportion of missed hypotensive events. DESIGN: Prospective observational study conducted between 2018 and 2020. SETTING: Single-centre, academic hospital in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Adults scheduled for elective non-cardiac surgery lasting over two hours. Of the 105 eligible patients, 91 had sufficient data for analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the time-to-hypotensive event intervals predicted by HPI popup alerts (≥85 for ≥40 s) and MAP-alerts (70-75 mmHg). Secondary analyses examined differences between these predictors regarding the PPV and missed event rates, as well as the difference in these metrics between instant HPI-85 alerts and the six MAP-alerts. RESULTS: The largest time-to-event difference was seen between HPI-85 popup and MAP-70 alerts, with a gain of 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57 to 0.58) min, favouring HPI. Higher MAP thresholds reduced this time difference, but worsened PPV values, with 20.5 (95% CI, 20.3 to 20.6)% at MAP-75 compared to 55.6 (95% CI, 55.4 to 55.8)% for HPI-85 popups. Missed event proportions were similar: between one to three percent. Instant HPI-85 and MAP-72 alerts showed comparable performance, but both had suboptimal PPV values around 30%. However, adding a 40-s time-dependence to MAP's alert definition levelled the differences across the three evaluated metrics, aligning more closely with HPI-85 popup alerts. CONCLUSIONS: Using HPI-85 popup alerts does not provide additional prediction time over MAP-alerts in the 70 to 75 mmHg range, but they may be preferred due to higher PPV values. Instant HPI-85 and MAP-alerts perform similarly, with MAP-72 being closest, though these alerts more frequently occur regardless of subsequent hypotension with the potential to introduce unnecessary treatment. Adding a 40-s time-dependence to MAP-alerts to match the HPI popup characteristic eliminates distinctions between prediction time and missed events, while maintaining the higher PPV. However, whether 40sec-MAP-alerts are clinically equivalent remains to be determined in prospective clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03795831 on 10 January 2019.

HPI-85 popups may limit unnecessary treatment versus MAP 70-75; leaves open whether 40-s MAP alerts are equivalent.