Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
November 14, 2018The Heart Surgery ForumOpen Access

Use of the ClearSight® System for Continuous Noninvasive Hemodynamic Monitoring during Heart Valve Interventions: Review of the Literature and Single-Site Experience

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Key result

Continuous noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring using the ClearSight system during valve interventions showed acceptable bias compared to invasive approaches and saved up to 3 hours per day.

Why the study?

Does continuous noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring via the ClearSight system provide acceptable accuracy and improve procedural efficiency compared to invasive monitoring in patients undergoing structural heart interventions?

Population

Patients undergoing interventional and structural cardiology procedures; single-site experience includes…

Comparison

Continuous noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring… vs Invasive hemodynamic monitoring.

Design

Review

Authors

GGGeorge A. GellertIndependent SectorPBPeter BramlagePreventive Cardiology

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Implication

Should not yet change practice for structural interventions; leaves open need for randomized trials to confirm accuracy and efficiency.

Structured PICO

Does continuous noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring via the ClearSight system provide acceptable accuracy and improve procedural efficiency compared to invasive monitoring in patients undergoing structural heart interventions?

P
Population
Over 400 heart valve procedures monitored with the noninvasive ClearSight system at a single site.
E
Exposure
Continuous noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring via the ClearSight system (finger-cuff and automated volume-clamp technology integrated into the EV1000 NI platform).
C
Comparator
Invasive hemodynamic monitoring (arterial catheterization and transpulmonary thermodilution).
O
Outcome
Accuracy of arterial pressure and cardiac output measurements, and procedural time savings.surrogate

Noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring using the ClearSight system during structural heart interventions appears feasible, providing acceptable accuracy and significant procedural time savings compared to traditional invasive monitoring.

Limitations

  • Slight differences in arterial pressure and cardiac output relative to invasive approaches
  • Lack of formal study comparing patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness

Cite This Study

Gellert et al. (2018) conducted a review in Heart Valve Interventions (n=400). ClearSight system vs. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring was evaluated. Continuous noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring using the ClearSight system during valve interventions showed acceptable bias compared to invasive approaches and saved up to 3 hours per day.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a81b3d9b7134f4e3dee27f0https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.2177
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. 1Non-invasive continuous blood pressure monitoring of tachycardic episodes during interventional electrophysiology2010 · 38 citations
  2. 2Hemodynamic monitoring in obese patients: The impact of body mass index on cardiac output and stroke volume*2006 · 100 citations
  3. 3Noninvasive Continuous Arterial Blood Pressure Monitoring with Nexfin®2012 · 295 citations
  4. 4Sedation or general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).2015 · 94 citations
  5. 5European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010 for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices in adults2010 · 624 citations