Key result
Non-invasive blood pressure measurement via brachial cuff oscillometry showed large limits of agreement compared to invasive measurement, with a mean difference for MAP of -1.0 mmHg (-21.0 to 18.9).
Why the study?
The study aimed to compare non-invasive blood pressure measurements with invasive arterial blood pressure measurements in critically ill patients.
Does non-invasive blood pressure measurement using brachial cuff oscillometry provide accurate readings compared to invasive arterial blood pressure measurement in critically ill patients?
Observational (n=736)
Does non-invasive blood pressure measurement using brachial cuff oscillometry provide accurate readings compared to invasive arterial blood pressure measurement in critically ill patients?
Mean Difference: -1 (95% CI -21–18.9)
Non-invasive brachial cuff oscillometry shows large limits of agreement compared to invasive arterial measurements in critically ill patients, potentially leading to different treatment decisions in about 20% of cases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May prompt selective invasive monitoring in critically ill patients; leaves open validation of alternative non-invasive methods.
Kaufmann et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Critically ill (n=736). Non-invasive automated brachial cuff oscillometry vs. Invasive radial arterial catheter-derived measurement was evaluated on Mean difference in mean arterial pressure (MAP) (MD -1.0 mmHg, 95% CI -21.0 to 18.9). Non-invasive blood pressure measurement via brachial cuff oscillometry showed large limits of agreement compared to invasive measurement, with a mean difference for MAP of -1.0 mmHg (-21.0 to 18.9).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: