Key result
Noninvasive blood pressure monitoring with ClearSight did not meet AAMI criteria for systolic blood pressure (bias -10 mm Hg, precision 13.6 mm Hg) compared to invasive radial artery monitoring.
Why the study?
Most postoperative events after CEA are hemodynamic, requiring strict BP control, but whether noninvasive beat-to-beat ClearSight finger BP can replace invasive radial artery BP remained unknown.
Does noninvasive ClearSight finger BP monitoring accurately replace invasive radial artery BP monitoring in patients following carotid endarterectomy?
Population
48 patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis following CEA
Comparison
Noninvasive ClearSight finger BP vs invasive radial artery BP
Design
Single-center clinical validation study
Follow-up
6-hour period
Authors
Loading...
ClearSight finger BP fails AAMI criteria for systolic values post-CEA; leaves open MAP-guided noninvasive monitoring in validation studies.
Observational (n=48)
No
Does noninvasive ClearSight finger BP monitoring accurately replace invasive radial artery BP monitoring in patients following carotid endarterectomy?
Noninvasive ClearSight finger blood pressure monitoring does not meet accuracy standards for systolic blood pressure compared to invasive radial artery monitoring after carotid endarterectomy.
Fassaert et al. (2021) conducted an observational in symptomatic carotid artery stenosis (n=48). Noninvasive beat-to-beat ClearSight finger BP (BPCS) vs. Invasive beat-to-beat radial artery BP (BPRAD) was evaluated on accuracy and precision of BP derived by ClearSight vs. the reference standard. Noninvasive blood pressure monitoring with ClearSight did not meet AAMI criteria for systolic blood pressure (bias -10 mm Hg, precision 13.6 mm Hg) compared to invasive radial artery monitoring.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: